ML20214L491
| ML20214L491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1986 |
| From: | Roisman A TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Dignan T ROPES & GRAY |
| References | |
| CON-#386-627 OL, NUDOCS 8609100193 | |
| Download: ML20214L491 (2) | |
Text
'-
M.Qg TRIAL LAWYERS FOR Pusuc JUSTICE. P.C.
CoUNSEROR$ ATLAw D LK iED SulTE 6tl 2000 P STREET NORTHWEST MASHINGTON,D.C.20036 86 SEP -9 A10 31 (202p63 8600 ANTHONY L ROISMAN LXECUTIVE DRECTOR ARTHUR BRYANT staff ATTORNEY OFFICE 0' h > :. ' Ah f 00CMETihG A 5! FVKf.
Bitut CARot DRtcToR. ENVIRONMENTAL 8 RANCH WHl5TLIBLOWER PROJECT BARBARA PRATT September 9, 1986 Of fICE MANAC,[R KATHLEIN CUMBERBATCH SECRETARY Thomas J. Dignan, Jr.
fjV7 "db Ropes & Gray s4CKETNUMBfA jMC/ f 4
225 Franklin Street
,, n n, I m L P.C.,, _ _. _
Boston, MA 02110
Dear Tom:
The purpose of this letter is to state CASE's position concerning our interrogatories of July 2, 1986, to which Applicants are required to respond according to the Board's Order of September 2, 1986.
We believe that legally Applicants are required to provide these answers immediately, but in the spirit of the agreement which CASE and Applicants signed on July 19, we are prepared to allow 14 days for the answers counting from September 2, when the Order was issued.
The Board's Order requires a response to four of the interrogatories, Nos. 3-6, but limits their scope to those allegations " sustained by the CPRT". Order, pg.4.
Although the Board refers to its questions of August 8, we believe it is clear the Board has ordered that Applicants answer our questions as worded and modified and not the Board's questions.
Thus the time schedule Applicants have proposed for answering the Board's questions or any arguments Applicants may make about not answering any of those questions are irrelevant here.
CASES's questions, as modified, have been ordered to be answered and the answers are due not later than September 16th.
CASE also believes that the September Order in directing that the questions be answered to the extent allegations have been " sustained by the CPRT" (Order, pg.4 ) requires Applicants to answer Interrogatories 3-6 for each allegation that has been found to be partially or completely factually correct.
This would not permit Applicant to avoid answering the discovery if an allegation were found to be f actually correct but, to not be safety significant or to be incorrect only because the criteria now used to judge the allegation are different than the criteria applicable when the events to which the allegation refers occurred.
8609100193 860909 PDR ADOCK 05000445 O
PDR Q}
It is also our position that the Order requires Applicants to answer Interrogatories 3-6 for allegations sustained by any of the consultants working in any way under the CPRT umbrella, such as CYGNA or Stone & Webster.
Finally, as worded the interrogatories are addressed to the Applicants and thus the answers must reflect data in the possession of each of the owners and their consultants and contractors as well as TUEC.
The purpose of this letter is to make our position clear to avoid any confusion later.
If Applicants disagree with any of these conclusions we believe the burden is on Applicants to take appropriate action, if any, to avoid being in violation of the Board's September 2, 1986 Order.
Sincerely,
- ony, Roisman Executiv Director i
AZRakc cc: Service List' l
l l
l l
l l
.. - -. _ -. - _ _.