ML20205L828

Case Response to Applicant Interrogatories to Intervenor (Set 1987-4) & Motion for Protective Order.* Applicant Discovery Conflicts W/Board Assurance That Case Will Have Sufficient Time to Analyze Data.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20205L828
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/28/1987
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#287-2936 OL, NUDOCS 8704020202
Download: ML20205L828 (17)

Text

_

.e

• 2936 .

i 3/28/87 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'

(

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION %CNNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ...; ._

'87 MAR 30 P3 :08 In the Matter of '

. Docket Nos. 50-4454-and 50-446 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC C R CE E U EC ..el W" COMPANY,et,al. CCCn U g . . ,

(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Operating License) i Station, Units 1 and 2) i l

'I CASE'S RESPCNSE TO ,

APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENOR (Set No. 1987-4) and MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ,

Introduction CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, hereby i files this, its Response to Applicants' 2/18/87 Interrogatories to Intervenor (Set No. 1987-4) and Motion for Protective Order /1/, 1 and requests issuance by this Board of a protective order relieving CASE of any obligation to respond to Applicants' Interrogatories to CASE, Set 1987-4, beyond what is contained herein.

CASE has several objections to this Set of interrogatories. First, it should be noted that Mr. Doyle's Affidavit, which is the subject of Set 1987-4, was not composed by CASE; Mr. Doyle's opinions as stated in his Affidavit are his own. Mr. Doyle is very much an independent thinker; CASE does not put words into his mouth (although we may occasionally request clarification of certain points).

g/ CASE requested an extension from March 9, 1987, to March 28, 1987, in which to file this response; Applicants had no objections.

l 0 hhk45

• 3 l 3 50

_ _ . _ _ . . _ - . _ m.

And, as specifically stated in CASE's 12/30/86 Partial Response to .

Applicants' 12/1/86 Response to Board Concerns (which is the basis for Applicants' Set 1987-4):

F "This pleading is limited to some specific points'and comments which CASE Witness Jack Doyle, from his perspective of having been involved in these proceedings- for over four years, believed .might be helpful to the Board and were important to.make at this time. . .

" CASE will be addressing Applicants' Response at other appropriate times, and this should be considered to be only a partial response. ,

"For the assistance of Applicants, we note that CASE considers.

that some of the items discussed in.Mr. Doyle's affidavit touch on generic flaws in Applicants' Program Plan regarding design / design QA issues. We will be advising Applicants in the future in more detail regarding these. (This is in. accordance with CASE's 9/15/86 letter to the Board under Subje'ct: Memorialisation of -  ;

Changes in Recent Board Orders and/or Filing Dates for.Certain Pleadings, item 4, page 3.)" g/ i Mr.DoylewasspeakingtotheBoard,throughCASE,becauheCASE believes that what he had to say is pertinent, even though what he said might not have been phrased exactly the way CASE would have phrased it or even expressed exactly what CASE's preliminary and/or final position will be. CASE has not asked that Mr. Doyle's Affidavit be admitted into evidence, and his Affidavit has not been subjected to the usual requirement's for admission into evidence. When we are ready to put our case into ,

evidence, we will at that time decide whether or not we will usa Mr. Doyle i as an expert witness, and at that point in time we will decide which portions (if any) of his Affidavit are still applicable and which CASE would .,

n l

f2,/ It should be noted that CASE has now provided Applicants with our preliminary views regarding some design / design QA issues; see CASE's 3/23/87 Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to Intervenor (Set No.

1987-7) and Motion for Protective Order, especially at page 14, first paragraph; see also CASE's opening remarks at 3/12/87 through 3/14/87 CASE / Applicants (Stone & Webster) meeting.,

2

)

=,~ ~. -

,7 3,.

, )e <*- N

/ '

3 want to adopt as its position at that time. CASE will not tell Mr. Doyle in 1

advance which opinions to hcve; ke vill let him tell us (and if appropriate,

, the Board) what opinions he has. At a later time, selection will be made of the ones that we think are appropriate fbr the hearing.

,, At this point in time','Mr. Doyle clearly is a non-testifying expert witness. CAGE has not gone through his Af fidavit word-by-word, .1line-by-line

.g ,

or paragraph-by paragraph to see whether or not we agree with every word per se; indeed, we may never do so /_3/. Therefch , we simply do not have the

answers that Applicants now seek. And, obviously, Applicants (as discussed in more detail later herein) cannot forca CASE to take valuable time from our nther ongoing wori to prepare such a preliminary and non-binding analysis merely to answer Applicants' interrogatories at this time.

.in addition to general objections applicable to all or a substantial portion of the interrogatories, CASE cleo has several specific objections to particular interrogatories.

\

Briefly stat'ed ,' additional general -objections are:

. N ., ,

1. 14 reque,sts are premat.ure and unanswerable by CASE until it has

, completed its' !.?RT discovery of -che Staff and Applicants, which cannot be

! completed at leait ur.til Apolicants unequivocally state that all acdifications to cl.e CPRT are complete and published (e_.J,.,, where is Rev. 4 of the CPRT, will and if so how will it affect design / design /0A issues, etc.?). This objection is applicable to all interrogatories.

i L3/ We do note.,however, that at the time Hr. Doyle's Affidavit was typed for him by 'CASZ, we t'.id not see anything in it so obviously incompatible with,0!.SE's preliminary position that we felt it necessary te advise the Soarl that CASE specifically did not agree with it.

~

3 t 4

e .

i

• - 2. The requests seek work in progress and thus are premature under the law of this case. 'This objection is applicable to all 'nterrogatorien.-

i

3. Insofar as,the interrogatories'are deemed to relate to issues of-t i plant design or answers are in whole or in part dependent on implementation' '

of any aspect of the CPRT or corrective action plan, they ere premature and cannot be answered until the work has been completed and relevant discovery thereon by CASE has been completed. This objection is applicable to all ,

interrogatories answers to which depend on implementation. We cannot determine the extent to which answers depend upon implementation un'til we, t

have completed discovery on CPRT adequacy, but it appears that answers to' 7 e' .

,\

Set 4 depend, at least in part, on implementation. This objection also ( ,

applies to all interrogatories that relate to design.

4. The requests in Set 1987-4 seek to require CASE to prepare studies and analyses which it would not otherwise prepare at this time and, in some

d. instances, perhaps would never prepare. Applicants are of course not

• \ :

entitled to require CASE to create documents or do analyses, merely to answer discovery. See Applicants' 7/28/86 Responses to CASE's 6/30/86 Interrogatories and Request for Documents and Motion for Protective Order,

p. 8; and Applicants' 12/12/86 Response to CASE's " Motion to Compel Answers to Sets 3-7," p. 5.

}

5. To the extent the analyses and~ positions requested are prepared by s "7

CASE's attorneys or representative, they are trial preparation materials and 1 -

not subject to discovery and/or undiscoverable attorney work product. This '

objection is applicable to all interrogatories at this time but could change if and when CASE retains experts to develop positions on any of tha issues  ;

as to which discovery is sought. l i

4

' b

i k

6. All of the questions seek to know in various forms what CASE contends and will be answered by CASE when it so contends in its way, not v

following an outline specified by Applicants. This objection is applicable

.t -

to all interrogatories.

Applicants' Set 1987-4 addresses itself basically to interrogatories

(., such as the following, with some variations; the following examples are representative" of the types of interrogatories asked:

, " Applicants' Interrogatory 3:

"Does the Intervenor agree with each of the statements made in paragraph 2 of the Af ff. davit of Jack Doyle? If not, please identify which statements the Intervenor disagrees with and

' \

e specify the Intervenor's reasons for disagreement. If the

. Incervenor agrees with any of the statements made, please: ,

,  ?

"(a) Describe every one of what CASE contends are 'NRC Region IV's deviations from their intended mission.'

+'

,, "(b) Describe every one of what CASE contends are 'the more recent 4.

~

problems contained in this report.'"

" Applicants' Interrogatory 5:

l

' "Does the Intervenor ag ee with each of the statements made in paragraph 3 of the Affidavit of Jack Doyle? If not, please identify which statements the Intervenor disagrees with and specify the Intervenor's reasons for disagreement. If the Intervenor agrees with any of the statenents made, please:

"(a) State how much time would be adequate, in the Intervenor's view, 'at the end of the program to ascertain what program xN was utilized and what it was utilized for.' -

"(b) State the reason!s) the Intervenor arrived at its answer in j subpart(a).

"(c) Answer the question posed: '[Ilf the Plan is so flexible out of necessity, what impact does this flexibility have on areas completed prior to changes in the program?'"

\

In Applicants' two preceding Interrogatories and the numerous similar interrogatories throughout Set 1987-4, Applicants demonstrate a basic and o, 5 s

v -

4 fundamental misconception regarding CASE's 12/30/86 Partial Response to Applicants 12/1/86 Response to Board Concerns -- in CASE's 12/30/86 Partial Response CASE was not contending anything, claiming anything, or taking a final and specific position on anything. When CASE is ready to do so, we will not be shy about so advising Applicants. CASE objects to the following Interrogatories which fall into this category: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, and 155. In additio'n, CASE objects to each of these interrogatories because they seek irrelevant information, attorney work product and thinking processes.

" Applicants' Interrogatory 2:

"Does the Intervenor intend to offer the testimony of any expert witness with respect to any of the matters subsumed by the paragraph of the Affidavit of Jack Doyle referred to in the preceding Interrogatory? If the answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, please:

"(i) identify each expert witness whom the Intervenor intends to present with respect to any such issue;

"(ii) state the substance of the facts to which each expert witness is expected to testify;

"(iii) state the substance of the opinion or opinions to which each expert witness is expected to testify;

"(iv) provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion to which each expert witness is expected to testify."

Applicants' Interrogatories regarding possible expert witnesses are premature. CASE has not yet made a determination as to whether or not we 6

will have expert witnesses testify regarding the matters which are the subject of Applicants' Interrogatories, nor have we decided who such expert witnesses might be. To the extent the analyses and positions requested are-prepared by CASE's attorneys or representative, they are trial preparation materials and not subject to discovery and/or undiscoverable attorney work product. This objection is applicable to all such interrogatories at this time bu could change if and when CASE retains experts to develop positions on any of the issues as to which discovery is sought. CASE objects to the following Interrogatories which fall into this category: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 68, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, and 154.

Discussion The essence of the filed discovery is to find out what positions CASE j will take, the bases for the positions, the facts relied upon to support the bases, the experts to be used, their factual findings and opinions, and the bases for their conclusions. However, all of Applicants' Interrogatories in Set 1987-4 appear to have been premised upon the erroneous assumption that Mr. Doyle was merely mouthing CASE's words and positions; as discussed in.

the preceding (see especially pages 1 through 3), this is an incorrect assumption. One of the principal objections to this discovery is that it is p re ma ture. CASE does not and will not know the answer to the questions 7

i i

~

propounded until it has completed discovery and of course received full--

answers to discovery, had time to analyze the data received, and reached its

conclusions. At this point, CASE has no final position ready for i ' presentation to this Board, since discovery on the CPRT adequacy, Results

]

! Reports, and design issues is not nearly complete. CASE's preliminary

-positions are not discoverable because they are-irrevelant and constitute

~ opinions based on " work in process" which, at least for this case, it has been determined need not be produced because it.is disruptive of ongoing work.- Transcript of' November 12, 1985, Hearing 'Before _ the Boar'd, e.g. ,

pages 24,257-24,258. See also Pennsylvania Power and Light'Co.

f (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),-ALAB-613,-12 NRC 317, 338-39 (1980). (" Simply as a matter of fairness, a licensing board may not waive the discovery rules for one side and not'the other. . . . ")

Throughout this proceeding, CASE has taken." positions" in the course of i

pleadings or oral arguments. Those positions represented CASE's view at that time based on the information that it had and had reviewed. Those-

positions were taken in order to protect CASE's ability to adequately pursue the issues and/or to advise Staff, Applicants, or the' Board (as a courtesy-and voluntarily) of CASE's then current position. The only " positions" of.

1

. CASE that could possibly be proper subjects for discovery are final

. positions upon which CASE will rely in this proceeding and those CASE has i

not yet developed on the subjects identified by Applicants.

With regard to design / design OA in particular, the situation is I

j complicated by the fact that Applicants themselves have often not yet settled on firm positions, and by the sheer volume and complexity of 8

l

. i documents recently received by CASE.- For example, CASE received' Revision 3 of . Stone & Webster's Project Procedure .CPPP-7, " Design Criteria for Pipe Stress and Pipe Supports," during the 3/12/87 through 3/14/87 meeting between CASE's .at-this-time non-testifying expert Jack Doyle and Applicants.

(Stone & Webster); and just prior to filing the instant pleading, CASE received the transcript of the 3/12/87 through 3/14/87-meeting,~as well as

• about a 4-inch stack of documents which Applicants supplied to CYGNA

-(referenced in two letters to the Board from Applicants' counsel Mr.

Wooldridge dated 3/26/87). These are only the most recent examples of'the numerous voluminous, detailed, technical documents which CASE is now having to review, analyze, and digest.- It is impossible for CASE to arrive at final positions on such issues until Applicants themselves have done so and 4

completed their work, and CASE has had the time and opportunity'to complete our evaluations and analyses of the information which we have received and 9

are now receiving.

i lt appears to CASE that Applicants seem to have a split personality regarding design / design OA matters: on the one hand, Applicants' engineers (Stone & Webster) appear eager to have CASE's questions answered and our concerns satisfied; on the other hand, Applicants' attorneys seem t'otally committed to seeing to it that CASE does not have the necessary time in

which to concentrate on reviewing and evaluating Applicants' documents _in order to ascertain whether or not our concerns have, in fact, been satisfied. The latter appears to often be working at cross purposes or even sabotaging the efforts of the former, which can ultimately undermine the promising informal ef forts which have already begun (see Transcript of March 12'through 14, 1987, meeting between CASE and Applicants). -Hearings were on i

9

hold in these proceedings for many months, at Applicants' request, while they tried to get their act together. It is now necessary -- and essential i for any semblance of fairness -- for CASE to be allowed the necessary time to review, analyze, and evaluate the documents produced by Applicants' efforts which are essential to CASE's being able to arrive at informed, reasoned positions on design / design QA issues.

For CASE, which does not generate internal documents, the disruption of work is even greater because CASE would have to stop its analytical work to produce answers to discovery which would reflect mid-course positions and supporting data which CASE would not otherwise develop. In addition, where Applicants were relieved of answering "in process" discovery with literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of people working on the development of their case and thus avoided producing documents that actually already existed, CASE has only a small handful of people and diversion of any one of them to answer "in process" discovery would result in diversion of a substantial percentage of CASE's person power devoted to this case. This has been precisely what has happened in some instances recently. Perhaps Applicants' attorneys believe that this tactic will prevail. CASE does not believe that it will. To the contrary, such obvious legalistic maneuverings will simply unnecessarily delay these proceedings still further and delay future more-productive informal meetings such as the recent one, while CASE's representative is tied up responding to interrogatories regarding what can, at most, only be CASE's preliminary positions at this time. If, however, Applicants' attorneys are determined to extend and further delay these proceedings (and if Applicants are willing to allow them to do so) CASE will 10

continue to participate to the best of our ability; if Applicants' attorneys insist on doing things the hard way, that is Applicants' decision, and they will have to live with the eventual consequences.

The discovery in Applicants' Set 1987-4 also appears to assume that, separate and apart from CASE's attorneys and representative, there is a cadre of CASE staff who, like Applicants' staff, analyze and develop substantive positions that are then subjected to lawyer review and thus that there is a body of opinion and analysis not prepared for litigation and not prepared by lawyers or representative. That is largely an incorrect assumption. Virtually all the work on the CPRT, Results Reports, design, and other issues is done by the CASE attorneys and representative solely for the purpose of trial preparation. Experts will be involved, if at all, only at the last stages of the preparation of documents for filing, or preparation of the case for trial or summary disposition. No substantive documents are produced by CASE or its consultants that are not drafts or final versions of filed pleadings or documents sent to the Staff or otherwise made public. Thus the answer to the pending discovery, if given now, would necessarily require the impermissible divulging by CASE of the mental processes and analyses of its attorneys and representative, contrary to 10 CFR 2.740(b)(2).

Applicants' discovery is also inherently inappropriate in the context of this proceeding. The reality is that, as CASE develops its position on particular issues, CASE immediately discloses that position either in requests to the Staff (e.g., Preliminary Review of the Comanche Peak I

Response Team Program Plan (Dkt. 2), attached to August 15, 1985, letter 11

from Billie Garde to the Hearing Board; Preliminary Analysis of Issue Specific Action Plan I.a.4, Agreement Between Drawings and Field Terminations, attached to May 2, 1986, letter from Billie Garde to Vincent Noonan) or pleadings with this Board such as the expected summary disposition motions on CPRT adequacy. But for preparing issues for trial or for presentation to the Staff, there is no CASE work on Comanche Peak.

Unlike Applicants, who may prepare analyses both for licensing purposes and for other purposes and who must prepare information to satisfy the Staf f and this Board independent of CASE and its contentions, CASE has no information that is not directly tied to the presentation of its case in the various NRC fora. When CASE has a final position, Applicants will be one of the first to know it.

CONCLUSION Applicants' discovery in its entirety is objectionable and CASE seeks a protective order with respect to all of Set 1987-4, for all of the reasons discussed herein. We cannot at this time identify which, if any, of-the specific questions could be answered without running afoul of the limitation on requiring production of attorney work product and mental impressions.

Once the relevant discovery by CASE is complete, and CASE has completed its analysis of the data, CASE will know if independent non-lawyer or non-representative analyses have been done that may be discoverable. At that time, CASE will also, as it has in the past, be stating most of its position and bases in the form of appropriate pleadings. If such pleadings are not filed, but CASE has completed its analyses, Applicants can at that time, but 12

not now, file discovery requests which will of course be subject to the normal objections as to relevancy, inappropriate inquiry of experts, attorney work product, and the like. In addition, to the extent CASE's pleadings disclose positions and bases not previously known to Applicants, we will be generous in allowing Applicants sufficient time to respond to the pleadings, provided the delay is not so long as to prejudice CASE's rights.

In short, when the time is ripe, Applicants will receive the essence of that which they now seek, to the extent it would ever be discoverable, and CASE should be permanently protected from answering the present requests. At the appropriate time, Applicants can file new discovery requests to address the d

questions to which they are entitled to have answers.

On numerous occasions this Board has ' assured CASE that, once CASE receives data from Applicants, particularly given the delay in producing the data, CASE will have sufficient time to analyze the data, conduct discovery .

on the data, and develop positions. The Applicants' discovery directly conflicts with that Board assurance, and CASE should not be required to answer any of the discovery.

Respectfully submitted, g(Mrs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 Filed: March 28, 1987 13

STATE OF TEXAS )

Juanita Ellis, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That she is President of CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),

and knows the contents of the foregoing document:

CASE's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories to Intervenor (Set No.1987-4) and Motion for Protective Order, dated 3/28/87 and that the same is true and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief.

D b6C. fAliJ

~s .) Juanita Ellis, President ASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)

SWORN T0 and Subscribed before me on this J /" day of I-~ o , 19 / 7

/ u- #kam Notary Public My Comission Expires: J//o // r (SEAL)

The original of this page is being mailed under separate cover, First Class Mai.1, to the Secretary, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section.

l

~

C A S E (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)

==

March 28, 1987 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

In the Matter of Application of Texas Utilities Electric -

Company, et al. for An Operating License for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units #1 and #2 (CPSES)

Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 CASE's Response'to Applicants' Interrogatories to Intervenor (Set No. 1987-4) and Motion for Protective Order We are attaching hereto the original signed and notarized affidavit of CASE President Juanita Ellis, which was attached to subject pleading.

Thank you.

l Respectfully submitted, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound. Energy) rs.) Juanita Ellis President -

cc: Service List Attachment i l

EC

!!$"d/C 1D' HN? 30 p3 :gg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFlce - -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CMf7Ef[gy%TMy BRANCfH Cf.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of }{

}{

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{

Station, Units 1 and 2) }{

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' INTERR0GATORIES TO INTERVEN0R (Set No.1987-4)

AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER have been sent to the names listed below this 28th day of March ,1987_,

by: Express Mail where indicated by

• and First Class Mail elsewhere.

Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 225 Franklin Street .

Washington, D. C. 20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Office of Executive Legal Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Commission 1107 West Knapp Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing i 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555 l l

l 1 .

1 I

I

o l Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq. i Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Division - i U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Robert Martin Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.

Regional Administrator, Region IV Trial Lawyers for Public Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000 P Street, N. W., Suite 611 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Washington, D. C. 20036

' Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Herman Alderman Lanny A. Sinkin Staff Engineer Christic Institute Advisory Committee for Reactor 1324 North Capitol Street Safeguards (MS H-1016)

Washington, D. C. 20002 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.

Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels William Counsil, Vice President & Wooldridge Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower,' Suite 3200 Skyway Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.

Spiegel & McDiarmid Docketing and Service Section 1350 New York Avenue, N.W.

(3 copies) Washington, D. C. 20005-4798 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com'ission m Ms. Nancy H. Williams Washington, D. C. 20555 Project Manager Cygna Energy Services Ms. Billie P. Garde 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Government Accountability Project San Francisco, California .

Midwest Office 94111-5894 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton, Wisconsin 54911-Mark D. Nozette, Counselor at Law Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N. W.,

Suite 700 Washington, D. C. 20007 a

0Mp.)JuanitaEllis, President GSE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2