ML20210N380
| ML20210N380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1987 |
| From: | Gad R, Garde B Citizens Association for Sound Energy, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2478 OL, NUDOCS 8702130110 | |
| Download: ML20210N380 (6) | |
Text
e 3
. 9 ~k 2c/77' L
Filed:
taATED CORRESPUMLkM4 CQg}T
'87 FEB 10 A8:33 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g;,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
50-446-OL COMPANY et al.
)
)
(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating License)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
STIPULATION WHEREAS the Citizens Association for Sound Energy
~
(CASE) has served notices of deposition and obtained the issuance of 13 subpoenae duces tecum addressed to individuals currently or formerly employed by Applicants, which requested that the witnesses bring to the deposition all documents that refer in any way to the subject matter of the deposition; and WHEREAS Applicants have objected to the production of some of the documents on a variety of 8702130110 B70203 PDR ADOCK 05000445 PDR g
41 grounds including, but not limited to:' that sought after information was beyond the scope of the issue, was unduly burdensome and sought in-process documents; and Applicants have further objected to oral examination of the witness on a variety of grounds including the aforementioned. grounds; and 4
WHEREAS CASE and Applicants desire amicably to resolve their differences at this time and/or to postpone their resolution to a later date; THEREFORE, CASE agrees that each witness may bring to the deposition those documents which'the witnesses believes are relevant to the issues of the I
i adequacy of CPRT as defined by the Board through its i
orders and its explanation at the December 1986 pre-i hearing conference.
If in the course of the deposition CASE discovers the existence of a document which it i
believes falls within the scope of the subpoenae duces tecum or other CASE requests for document production l
but which was not previously produced, and its production was not previously denied by the Board, CASE may request the Applicants to produce such document and, in the absence of its production, may move to compel production of that document on the basis that it.
,-..---n-
_-,.,-,n,-_..,n,,,_,-a..n
,,,w---~_--
n-,
,,,-,-.,,,,,.,_w,_,._g.,,,
,,,,w-..
,-,,e
a is within the scope of the subpoenae duces tecum or the other request for document production.
If such a situation arises, Applicants agree not to argue that CASE is precluded from seeking to compel production of the document based on CASE's failure to earlier file a response to the objection raised by Applicants in " Objections to Deposition Notices and Subpoenae Duces Tecum and. Motion to Quash" and CASE agrees that neither the Applicants nor any witness will be in default for not having previously produced the document in question.
The parties further agree that all disputes regarding the scope.of oral examination of any witness or the propriety of any question (s) that may be propounded to a witness shall be deferred until after the question (s) have in fact been., propounded, objections interposed, and the witness has declined to l
respond pending a ruling on the objections; and in l
furtherance of this agreement, the Applicants agree not to argue that CASE is precluded from seeking to compel an answer to the question (s) based upon CASE's failure l
earlier to file a response to the objections raised by I
the Applicants in " Objections to Deposition Notices and 6 e
..m
,......-..-___,____.-r.
~ ~
.s Subpoenae Duces Tecum and Motion to Quash" and CASE agrees not to argue that the Applicants are precluded from pressing any objection (s) based upon the Applicants' failtir.e to have insisted upon rulings on the " objections to Deposition Notices and Subpoenae Duces Tecum and Motion to Quash" prior to commencement of the depositions.
4 9
Dated:
l' 2 I ~ O7 R. K. Gad Ip1 Ropes & Gray
(
225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Counsel for the Applicants Dated:
b3~ b Billie P. Garde Government Accountability Project Midwest Office 3424 N. Marcos Lane Appleton> WI 54911 i
Counsel for CASE l
~4-l l
1
.M Unitsd Stetac Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board k~
In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,
)
Dkt. Nos 50-445/6-OL
)
_et _al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
}i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE were served I hereby certify that copies of _ STIPULATION._._
today, February 4, 1987 by first class mail, upon the following:
Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Nicholas Reynolds, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20036 Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washin,gton, D.C.
20555 6
o.*jo Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Roads.10th Floor-
. Washington, D.Cr 20555
-Thomas G. Digane,Jr.
. Ropes & Gray I
.~225 Franklin Street n
~ Boston, MA 02110
.i ?
j' Robert Wooldridge
-l 2001 Bryan Tower y
Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201
.,7,
Renea Hicks
'i'.;.
Assistantjg$ poeral' EnvironsdEtal Proction Division Supreme Court Bldg.
Austin, TX 78711
, t'y
'Juanita Ellis CASE 1426 S. Polk Street
. Dallas, TX 75224 William G. Counsil Executive Vice President
.i
' Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower, 25th Floor 400 North Olive Street Dallas, TX 75201 1
+
hoy P.
Lessy,aJr.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis 1800 M.
St. N.Ws Washington, D.Ci 20036
.a j,
.j 3
'*A