ML20141J312

Submits Detailed Description of Indices of Documents Produced by Applicant,Per .Description Disproves Recipient Claim That Intervenors Prejudiced by Late Production of Documents.Related Correspondence

ML20141J312
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	04/22/1986
From:	Steptoe P COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Guild R BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES, GUILD, R.
References
CON-#286-923 OL, NUDOCS 8604280096
Download: ML20141J312 (7)

Text

( ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE C0%'ES COUNstLORs At law TwH E M5T NATIONAL PLAZA c=cAso susoseaw N Ift E N N auaw s stat. un twa x e was.*%Tcn orrict

• CONNEc,7;c,jt

, *lt=st h

• l WassueGTOh D C 30036 r=g = m em April 22, 1986 .

. APR 251986* $

Robert Guild, Esq. M g$pgj8 g Business and Professional People Q Ecmc for the Public Interefit #

109 North Dearborn Street " Co N Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Re: In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2),

Docket Nos. 50-456 and 50-4576L.

Dear Mr. Guild:

This is in response to your letter dated April 19, 1986, which I received this morning. You seem to misunderstand the document indices which we have sent you in the past month. These indices show for each document being produced the Bates stamp numbers, the source department or person, the date, the type of document, the author and the addressee.

The indices which we sent you on March 19, 1986, April 2, 1986, and April 16, 1986 were all copies of the same index, which we have labeled "C9". Each C9 index was updated to re-flect additional documents as they were made availabic.

' Even a cursory comparison of each index with the index previously sent to you would have shown you that only a >

small volume of additional documents were being made avail-able each time. These new documents are readily identifiable because they have higher Bates stamp numbers than those listed on the previous index. And, of course, the documents are kept in file drawers for your inspection in the same manner as they are shown in the indices.

For example, only 427 new documents were included l in the index we sent you on March 19, 1986. Only 98 new documents were included in the index we sent to you on April 2, 1986. Only 110 new documents were included in the April 16 index. And my April 15, 1986 letter to you included only 18 pages from three INPO related documents. By way of comparison, to date Edison has made available for your inspection at Isham, Lincoln & Beale a total of more than i 12,000 documents. Thus only a very small fraction of the 8604280096 860422 t PDR ADOCK 05000456 l 9 PM

[

Robert Guild, Ecq.

..7 April 22, 1986 f Page 2

[

documents produced by Edison in response to your discovery requests in this case have been produced in the last month.

You complain about spending six hours on April 10 reviewing the " voluminous documents" identified in the April 2 document index. As previously stated, there were only 98 l new documents in that index. Moreover, it is clear from l

' your handwritten notes dated April 10 (attachment 1) listing the documents which you wanted us to copy for you, that sour review was not confined to documents identified for the first time in the April 2 index. In fact, a comparison of the Bates stamp numbers in your handwritten notes to the document indices we have sent you shows that the great majority of these documents were made available to you

before April 2.

Your letter seeks to create the impression that Edison is dumping thousands of documents on BPI at the eleventh hour. That is inaccurate. The truth is that you i

have spent precisely three days this year reviewing documents l

at Isham, Lincoln & Beale: once in January; on February 7; l and on April 10. Instead of engaging in " intensive document i reviews", as you put it in your January 11, 1986 Motion to Revise Hearing Schedule and Motion for Sanctions, you have chosen to take deposition after deposition. The documents were available at IL&B in the room next door to the room in l which the depositions took place; later at your insistence l the filing cabinets were brought into the deposition room.

You could have looked at them any time you wanted to. You could have had someone else from BPI review them. You did neither.

l You have asked for "a complete explanation of thc circumstances of the late production of these documents". I disagree that all, or even most, of these documents are i being produced late. Your requests for discovery generally asked Edison to identify and produce "any documents that reflect [ Edison's answers to interrogatories)" Few, if any, l of the documents produced in March and April, 1986 were

! relied on or referred to in any way in preparing responses to your interrogatories. Some were not even in existence l when those interrogatory responses were filed. One example is the March 25, 1986 Steckhan memo (B0019723-28), which was first made available on April 2, 1986.

i Under the NRC's Rules of Practice, there is in I

general no duty to supplement responses to discovery which were complete when made. There are two exceptions: where 1

r Robert Guild, Ecq.

L' April 22, 1986 Page 3 the party knows that the response was incorrect when made; or where the party knows that the response although correct when made is no longer true and the circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment. 10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (e) . We have complied with this rule. For example, as I told you in our telephone conversation several days ago, the pages of the July, 1984 INPO report and related materials which I sent to you on April 15 were originally withheld from our November 13, 1985 production because they were not deemed to be relevant.

In preparing testimony I came to a different conclusion, and so I sent you the documents. You never asked me what contention items these 19 pages of INPO documents are relevant to.

The fact that you claim to be having a hard time in identifying how they are relevant to your own contention suggesta that our original judgment that they were not relevant was an understandable mistake.

We have often gone beyond strict compliance with the NRC's rules regarding supplementation of responses. In some cases as we prepared testimony we came across documents which you may not have asked for, but to avoid any arguments about discovery in the hearings, we made the documents avail-able to you anyway. For example, the. letter from T. J. Ryan of Sargent & Lundy to J. T. Westemeier of Edison dated May 9, 1984,(J0004441 et Jse.) was such a document. If you find this burdensome! please let me know and we will be glad to stop producing additional documents which may be relevant to Edison's testimony, but which you haven't asked for.

You request that we identify for you which of the documents Edison relies on for proof of itc claims or defenses to your QA contention. The documents Edison relics on for its direct case are attached, or will be attached to our prefiled testimony. We have not identified what documents we will use for cross examination or rebuttal testimony. You also request that we identify for each document the contention item to which it may be relevant. You didn't ask us to do this in your interrogatories and we decline to do so now, on the grounds that your request is untimely and would interfere with our hearing preparction. Moreover the request calls for trial preparation material which is discoverable only under limited l

circumstances which are not present here. In particular, ErI, which has numerous lawyers and non-legal personnel, is as

! capable as Isham, Lincoln & Boale of reviewing these documents l and determining how they may be relevant to parts of inter-venors' QA contention, and there is no question that BPI could have donc so by now had BPI chosen to devote more time and l

resources to reviewing the documents.

i i

k l.

gs Robert Guild, Esq.

April 22, 1986 lg Page 4 l

It follows from what I have said in this letter that your claim that intervenors have been prejudiced by late production of documents is without merit, and your threat to seek " appropriate sanctions" against Edison or Isham, Lincoln & Beale is also without merit.

g- Si ce y

, . /

t. 4 4f l PPStes Ph lip P. teptoe

! Enc.

l cc Service List l

i i

• \

l l

l l

1

Att chment 1 to St"pto7 4/22/86 latter j TD c@Py pr 16G2 l -v i s (,g5 n l 1 +lt9 14n4 f& lb 5 3 -*

f be r q- q [19/r5 /tp O l L Cfl6 -> , J ( q 36 61 13/FG #DAo.

151103D -9 J 1 ott 2. S% '

n4rLlt4 h f 7 21 l 9 f g g, g g jojg,/rq % .

P /7 5/ / -y / W 2-o 4%

fy n 6tl -> /? # 4 Q G24 k / ~7 566 --EP /14 3(1 M 's c- -

E lb pr 7 -a, /653f

/ / //3/rf he Nt~14694 1174+ 3lii176 8 n (:iK 'l - > I Q (::%E O ' 8', cy, to/p ,

i T1% = 107% Ab T6 iar4 1 4 w M 50c1 M A c. L k c.

3ist 454 3 /41/G N4

) 1b MT O I 2 C>'7 f I28 IL(t- { W o / 2. 32. (/ 4. //s /rf o I 2-3 2 6-* 7 +/ e[85 o I Z- 122-* + M- M-e 12. e +c -+ $ 9 3 /o / / r/ rv O l2 TV4 + T% !ll1 c /W l' o /Leyr

• 651. 9 /zI/r 3 O 1 L GFI'7 -> 7 o 2. /t 4t O I 2- 1 Q '3 --

• 7 R W O /2.1461 -ar I1769 /4L 6I2 792_ + / tqcj( /t4/t o i z 1% -* 747 / kit o it. r24 9 r2 + M.

O I 2. M p E'13 1 ltk]T4 D 13')o% -->

3 I 4- lltT/E C> l % 2 P -* 5 L.  % %er o I%4sl NCtl O 13 T

• N
• Nh A/64

C % 6 J - 4Ct 3 6~7 6 /-t-I /rr l

                                      *SM c 9 c 2.t "         9cc2    psa es c %54+               ct6ss   r /r/rf I        c.% 6c5 +            e c, $  e4 l

l

c. 4 7 2 22+ c174 r PWx Psu ze

• 11 T- 1 .L c_. zh/F.

c ct1% cto  %

c. cVM 2.

• 15 1%

c 9 U 6'7 9 9 E 1 2- I/4/M C','9T13 7/2"IN g' 97225

• q 7 2 7 n M 7

u lot i 3 s /n-/5 L. I'i32_ e 1531 #4 c 1999 s % c,(o/s( g 2,ot y -> '2 7 ci /i L/g}}