ML19319C334
| ML19319C334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1975 |
| From: | Coufal F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319C331 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130852 | |
| Download: ML19319C334 (4) | |
Text
-_
e 0 S 71' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E3 JUL 71975 > 9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- "10 '""'
/g In the Matter of
)
)
itt t THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
COMPANY
) Docket Nos. 50-346A
)
50-440A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,
)
50-441A Unit 1)
)
)
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING
)
)
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER At the direction of the Licensing Board, I have reviewed the documents produced by the Department of Justice with regard to which work product or attorney-client privilege is claimed.
1.
This document is dated July 1, 1971, and is from the chief of one of the sections of the Antitrust Division to the person in charge of the division, recommending the advice the Department might give to the AEC concerning tha antitrust aspects of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Station.
While the memo-randum contains many facts which are easily available to all the parties from non-privileged sources, they are so entwined with analyses of the writer of the 8002130 1
2 memorandum and with his recommendations that I find the whole document to be privileged, both as an attorney-client communication and as an attorney's work product.
2.
This is a memorandum dated July 17, 1973, from Mr. Charno to a Department of Justice section chief, reporting of negotiations with CEI.
Only that part of the document which contains a report of communications between Mr. Charno and AEC staff members has been claimed as a privileged work product.
The claim is sustained as to the fourth and following sentences of the paragraph begin-ning on page two, and as to the next to last para-graph on page two.
3.
This document is dated August 2, 1973, and is from Mr. Charno to a Department of Justice section chief, for which attorney-client and attorney work product privileges are claimed, because it is said to evaluate activities of CEI.
The document on its f ace appears to be a memoran-dum recording Mr. Charno's report of a meeting with representatives of the City of Cleveland.
It
3 appears to be a factual report of the matters that went on at the meeting, and I find, therefore, that the document is not privileged except for the first twelve words of the last paragraph to begin on page three, which are an impression gained by Mr. Charno at a previous meeting, rather than a statement of a factual nature.
4.
This document is a memorandum from Mr. Charno to a section chief and is purely legal evaluation and. recommendation, based on another document dated August 17, 1973.
I find this memoradum to be within the attorney-client and attorney work product privi-lege in toto.
The attached document also dated August 17, 1973, appears to be a memorandum to a section chief in the Department, and to the files, representing events that transpired at a meeting atwhichMr.Chfrno, representatives of CEI and representatives lofAECwerepresent.
I find this document not privileged, because it appears to be
/
4 d
a factual record of conversations that took place at the meeting, except for one statement which appears to be an impression or conclusion of Mr. Charno.
That exception consists of the second sentence of the third paragraph, beginning 4
on page one.
0 W.
Frederic J. Coufa0s.
Special Master Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 3rd day of July, 1975.
f t
..