ML20209A664
| ML20209A664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1986 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Horin W BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS |
| References | |
| CON-#386-599 OL, NUDOCS 8609080079 | |
| Download: ML20209A664 (8) | |
Text
p W'
- W f'ORMt!Q 1as xe 7523KEfE0 214/946 ohh6 (CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)
'86 SEP -5 P158 August 30, 1986 CFF!CE Or E re U p v FEDEPsAL F.XPRESS 00CnET E p v y, tir. Wili.iam A. Hor !n Bishop, Libernan, Cook, Purcell 6 Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036
Dear B!11:
Subj ec t :
In the !!atter of Texas Utilities Electric Company, g al.
Application for Operating Licenses Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statlon, Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 CASE's First through Flfth Sets of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce Re:
Credth!11ty As you and I discussed with Judge Bloch on 8/25/86, I am providing herewith a listing of those items contained in our F'rst through Fifth Sets re:
Credibility about which you and I need to talk, prior to our having to file a mot ion to compel.
In accordance with our agreement, I am sending this to you by Federal Exprecs today, and it should be in your hands by Tuesday, 9/2/86. As we discussed, we will attempt to work together to resolve our discovery disputes prior to having to involve the Licensing Board.
F!rst, we need to discuss the statement in your 6/23/86 letter to which was attached a l!st of questions which you state " Applicants consider outside the scope of inquiry authorized by the Board, t.e.,
requests not 'related to (Appilcants'] first Plan and its filings under that Plan' (ftemorandum and Order (Reconsiderat ion of it!srepresent at ion ?temorandum), LBP-85-4 7, November 25, 1985, at 11)."
We call your at tent ion to the rest of the Board's Order, especially the next paragraph, which states, in part "In add it ion, we are
+
not persuaded to revise any port !on of our fienorandum of necember 18, 1984 Consequent ly, t he Ordor Issued that day remains in effect."
We thus do not agree with Applicant s' view that the scope of discovery is 1!mited as Applleants have Indicated.
Second, It occurs to me that it might be well for us to immediately request clartftcation by the Board (pr ior to our filing an of ficial notion to compel) as to whether the Board meant those d'scovery requests regarding test!ng and sampling to include analytical tests or analyses, or to be 8609080079 860830 PDR ADOCK 05000445 C
PDR DS03
l limited strictly to actual physical test!,g.
First, we need to touch base to be certain that we completely understand one another's position. Then, since this will make a difference on many of the questions as to whether or not there is any need for me to flie a mot ion to compel, it would probably expedite things if we had a clarlfication from the Board right away on this.
I'd suggest that we put this among the first things we discuss.
We have worked primarily from the Attachments to CASE's 10/26/85 (Main Docket) Response to Board's 10/15/85 Reques:.Regarding Discovery Matters, wherein we had prep. ired a detailed listing of the questions and Applicants' responses to that time, as well as Applicants' 3/31/86 Additional Answers to CASE's Interrogatories re: Cred lb l11t y. He have made a good faith effort to go through our requests and Applicants' responses to see if there are any questions which we now helleve we can withdraw, and you will notice that there are several Instances where we have done so.
(I helleve we've taken into cor. sideration all of the filings App 1Leants have made in response to these five sets on credibility; however, if we've missed any, please let me know.)
The following is a list of specific items listed in your 6/23/86 letter to me as being outside the scope, in Apnllcants' opinion, which we are either withd rawing (where so indicated), or regarding which we are still in disagreement and regarding which we need to talk:
CASE's 1/17/85 First Set of Interrogatories to Appilcants and Requests to Produce Ee: Credth111ty CASn Question No.
1 2(a) 2(b) 2(c) -- withdrawn 2(d) -- withdrawn 2(e) 2(f) -- withdrawn 2(g) -- wit hdrawn 2(h) 2(1)
CASE's 2/4/85 Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce Ret Credibility 5
2
CASE's 2/25/85 Third Set of Interrogatories to Applicants and Requests to Produce Re: Credib!11ty Enttre Set CASE's 2/25/85 Fourth Set of Interrogator!es to Applicants and Requests to Produce re: Credibility 9
10 -- withdrawn
- 11 -- withdrawn
- 12(a) -- withdrawn 12(b) -- withdrawn 12(c) 12(d) -- withdrawn 12(c) -- withdrawn 12(f) 12(g) 12(h) 12(1) 12(j) 12(k) 12(1) -- withdrawn 12(m) -- withdrawn 12(n) -- withdrawn 12(o) -- withdrawn 12(p) -- withdrawn 13 14 -- withd rawn*
15 -- withdrawn
- 16 -- wit hd rawn*
17 -- withdrawn 18 -- wit hdrawn 19 -- withdrawn 20 -- withd rawn 1
3 l
a Fourth Set (continued):
21 -- withdrawn 22 -- w!thdrawn 23 25 (we need to discuss the extent to which this may have been partially, but not completely, answered) 26 -- withdrawn 27 -- withdrawn
- 28 29 -- withdrawn 30(a) thru (c), possibly will withdraw, provided we can agree regarding some modLfication of wording of 30(f) and (g) -- need to discuss in more detall 31 -- withdrawn without prejudice to iny slmtlar interrogatories which may have been flied in other contexts 37 -- we need to talk about this in some detall 34 40, re: C. C. Randall -- withdrawn 40, re: John !! err!tt 41 -- we need to discuss; we acknowledge that we currently do have some access, but not specifically as stated In this discovery request or ln this context 42
- Alt hough we are withdrawing these questions, we st L11 may have some comments regard!ng them which we will Include when we file our motion to compel.
4
In aJdit!on, we consider that responses by Applicants to the following discovery requests are deficient in some way, and/or that we need to discuss these in more detall for some reason.
(It may also be that we can agree on some mod' f tcation of the wording, or that we need to file clarifying or follow-up questions; we have tried to indicate here where we believe some follow-up may be necessary, but this should not be considered to be complete or b!nding.)
CASE's 2nd Set 2
3 (possible follow-up) i 4(b)(vil) -- we note in particular that on 7/11/86 we were advised that all the information had not yet been received from Dr.
Borest, and that Lt still has not been recetved as of 8/29/86.
CASE's 4th Set 1(a) 1(b) and (c) -- we do not show that the documents were attached; are we incorrect? Need to discuss.
1(c) 1(f)(1-8) -- we are stL11 reviewing documents; however, we want to be sure that Cygna has also answered, in the 10,000 or so pages, the specific questions posed.
l(f)(9) -- may follow-up 2(a)(1-4) 2(a)(5)(!)
2(a)(5)(vi!)
2(a)(6)(1-v11) 2(a)(7,8,9) 4 -- nay follov-up 7 -- may follow-up l
Ha -- may follow-up 8b -- nay follow-up 8e -- not certain received; nay need to discuss.
24 -- nay follow-up 35 -- may follow-up 5
CASE's 4th Set (continued):
36(d) -- may follow-up 36(e) -- may want to discuss; Appilcants want to change or expand?
36(L) -- may want to discuss; Applicants want to change or expand?
38 CASE's 5th Set 1
3a 3b 3c 3e(2) 3f 4a-c 4e 6a 6e 10h 15a 15e 16a(6) 16a(ll)(l!)
17a(1) 17a(3)(LL) 17a(4) 17a(ll) 18b(2) 18e(5) 20c 23(e, f) -- may follow-up 26b 27b(!v) 27b(v)
,[
2 7 b( v!)
27b(vi!)(a and b) 27c 6
CASE Sth Set (continued):
28 30 -- re: documents 31 -- re: doc ume nt s 32 - may follow-up 33 -- may need to discuss 34 First 35 Second 35-36c 36e 37 38b 38c 38d 39 It should also be understood that we are st ill rev! ewing documents being supptted on discovery and that we reserve the right to question their completeness and responsiveness in the future, should we find it necessary.
We niso assume (please correct us if we are wrong) that Appitcants will supplement their responses Lf there la a change in what their answer would have been Lf the question had just been asked or would be if the question were asked in the future.
We've tried to make this as complete as possible (although we do not consider this to be a htnding itsting), and it will at least give us a good starting point fron which to talk. Again, if I've misc,ed any responses, please let me know.
As menttoned in the preced:ng, please let me know r!ght away if you agree that we should immediately have the Board resolve our long-standing d!spute over the Board's intent ton regarding as to whether the Board meant those discovery requests regarding testing and samp1!ng to include analytical tests or analyses, or to be llmtted strictly to actual physical testing.
7
~
It appears to me that the next logical step would then be for you t o review this list and be sure that you are sat isfled with Applicants' responses.
I, in turn, will agaln be reviewed the responses and trying to further narrow what we believe we selli need to get.
We are hopeful that we can work together more successfully than we have at times in the past to tron out our discovery differences without having to involve the Board, and In accordance with the 8/19/86 agreenent between Appilcants and CASE.
I'll look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely, CASE (Cit!zens AssociatLon for Sound Energy) hld U
(les.) Juanita Ellis President Ove rn !ght Delivery cc:
Service List (First Class Hall, to be malled 9/2/86) a f
8
-