ML20198J827
| ML20198J827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1986 |
| From: | Dignan T ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-332 CPA, NUDOCS 8606030224 | |
| Download: ML20198J827 (8) | |
Text
' 9; y
QiJt1J wrtru.drG@u9;g.
p9
~*3 0 \\ \\ 0L s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e\\
\\
eh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
MAY 29 v386* g before the
.u
(
got ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A,l A
>} N"
)
In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-445-CPA COMPANY, et al.
)
)
(Application for (Comanche Peak Steam
)
Construction Electric Station,
)
Permit Extension)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS.' PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN In its Memorandum and Order of May 2, 1986, the Board directed Intervenors Citizens Association for Safe Energy (CASE) and Meddie Gregory (hereinafter "Intervenors") to
" file a discovery plan, setting forth the schedule for the filing and answering of interrogatories and follow up interrogatories, for the taking of depositions and for such other discovery as is anticipated."
Memorandum at VII, p.
12; Order at 5, p.
13.
The other parties were permitted to respond thereto as if it were a motion.
Intervenors have filed their " Proposed Discovery Plan."
This is Applicants' response.
gt? ABald StBENT TEO3
9 l'
I.
As we understand it, Intervenors propo'se tripartite, phased discovery, the first portion of which (" Phase I")
will be comprised of the submission of interrogatories and document production requests directed to identification of the parties'2 positions on the issues and the evidence they expect to offer in support of those positions.
Following receipt of the information properly requested during Phase I,
a second portion (" Phase II"), will commence.
During this portion discovery objectives will be narrowed to permit the parties to focus upon specific areas in which additional written discovery should be efficient.
Discovery during this phase, like the initial phase, is to be conducted through interrogatories and document production requests.
The intent of these first two written discovery periods is to postpone--and perhaps avoid--the taking of oral depositions until other, less burdensome avenues have been exhausted.
If such depositions are nevertheless required, they will be noticed and conducted in accordance with the rules of practice in Phase III, following completion of the second written discovery phase.
Within thirty days of the 1
See p. 3, infra.
2-
completion of " Phase III" by all parties, Requests for Admissions shall be filed.2 Subject to the reservations regarding a commencement date discussed below, Applicants find the"above-described plan acceptable.a We note that Intervenors' submission often seems to lack specific references to the discovery requests which Applicants may initiate, but we trust this was merely an oversight in the drafting of Intervenors' plan.
We are in any event confident the Board will follow Intervenors' closing request that the discovery schedule "should treat all parties equally."
When implemented under this standard, we believe Intervenors' three-phased approach appears as likely to produce efficient results as any we might devise.
II.
The foregoing discussion is premised on the assumption that Applicants' request for an extension of its construction permit will be litigated before this Board and 2
Intervenors' filing goes on to suggest provisions for summary disposition motions and hearings.
Since such items were not within the scope of the Board's directive, we do not address'them.
a We do not of course address the portions of the Intervenors' plan which seeks to orchestrate the schedule for the Staff's filings.
1.
measured against the contention admitted by the Memorandum and Order of May 2, 1986.
As the Board is aware, however, its allowance of the petitions to intervene and the admission of the single amalgamated contention are the subject of appeals filed by Applica,nts and by the Staff.
The Board will doubtless appreciate that Applicants believe their appeal is meritorious and will result in an order vacating the decision of this Board under which the current discovery plan discussion is relevant.
It should also recognize that if Applicants' views are vindicated during this appeal, discovery such as is contemplated by the Intervenors' three phase plan would be wholly unnecessary and inappropriate.
Indeed, even if the appeal process were to result only in some form of modification of issues to be litigated, the breadth and scope of discovery allowed the parties
- may change drastically.
We thus respectfully submit that while it is undeniably prudent and efficient to seek suggestions for a proposed discovery plan which could be implemented in the event this litigation goes forward as structured by the'May 2,
- Order, Because they were not authorized by the Board's May 2 Order, we shall not respond to Intervenor Gregory's proposed
" Interrogatories and Requests for Documents" which were appended to Intervenor's Proposed Discovery Plan.
If and when a specific timetable for filing and responding to such discovery is established, we will present our responses thereto with specific reference to such issues as are then l
in the case.
1 it would be unduly burdensome and potentially wasteful to require the preparation of discovery responses until the appellate process has run its course.
Experience confirms that a prompt disposition of the pending appeals is likely.
CONCLUSION Without benefit of the observations of the Staff, we currently believe the Intervenors' proposed tripartate discovery plan offers a workable methodology in the event this litigation is in fact to be conducted.
Pending reso).ution of that issue, however, we believe it would be singularly inappropriate to impose upon any of the parties the burden of preparing responses to discovery pending final appellate action in this matter.
Accordingly, we urge this Board to refrain from establishing any discovery i
timetable--at least until the Appeal Board's decision has been announced.
Respectfully submitted, Nicholas S.
Reynolds William A. Horin BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK PURCELL & REYNOLDS 12OO' Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 857-9800
- 4'
't.
Robert A. Wooldridge WORSHAM, FORSYTHE, SAMPELS &
WOOLDRIDGE 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 76201 (214) 748-936,5 Roy P.
Lessy, Jr.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-2706 Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
R.
K. Gad III ROPES & GRAY 225 Franklin Street Borton, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100
- g>
By e
TEBliias G.' Digng Jr.
6-
a f
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.,
one of the a'ctorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on'May 27, 1986, I made service of the within document by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Mr. James E.
Cummins Chairman Resident Inspector Administrative Judge Comanche Peak S.E.S.
Atomic Safety and Licensing c/o U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O.
Box 38 Commission Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Mr. William L. Clements Administrative Judge Docketing & Services Branch 881 W. Outer Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20555 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stuart A'.
Treby, Esquire Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the Executive President, CASE Legal Director 1426 S.
Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75224 Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road Room 10117 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
a f
Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O.
Box-12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuciear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Joseph Gallo, Esquire Executive Director Isham, Lincoln & Beale Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2000 P Street, N.W.,
Suite 611 Suite 840 Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Lanny A.
Sinkin Administrative Judge Christic Institute 1107 West Knapp 1324 North Capitol Street Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Washington, D.C.
20002 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin Citizens Clinic Director Regional Administrator, Government Accountability Project Region IV 1901 Que Street, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20009 Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011
^
Elizabeth B.
Johnson Geary S.
Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Room 10105 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1
Nancy Williams Cygna Energy Services, Inc.
101 California Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 f
b-'A A% /
W e D. Di g Jr.
9 4
.