ML20032B207
| ML20032B207 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1981 |
| From: | Olmstead W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Lanpher L CALIFORNIA, STATE OF, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111050290 | |
| Download: ML20032B207 (3) | |
Text
_
N g-s si wmq sg m v~y 7
I
@q k
k^
- 1r"
- y v ?y M
4 DISTRIBUTION:
W01mstead (Chron)
NRC Central Elle
>x OELD FF (2) ~
Shapar/Engelhardt liovember 3, 1981 7'
Christenbury/Scinto
/' 9 #
e B. Jones
\\
'h.Hassell Q
.Sweeney g
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
/
hnson 4
% ore iiill Christopher & Phillips, P.C.
'9-AD
.aickley,144-Phil.
190011 Street,fl.W.
p
~~
Washington, DC 20036
(
$('@l
/
4 In the Hatter of W
PACIFIC GAS AllD ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Huclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2)
Docket fios.'50-275 0.L. and 50-323 0.L.
Dear ftr. Leopher:
In your letter dated October 23, 1981, which was delivered to me by messenger on tionday, October 26, 1981, you disagreed with ty characterization of the status of document production by Governor Brown in the Diablo Canycn licensing proceeding. While I certainly agree that I would prefer to handle such natters informally and routinely among counsel, the discovery period in this matter is rapidly coning to a close and as yet the documents produced by the Governor at his offices in Sacramento do not appear to include all the relevant materials requested by the Staff. Thus, despite the fact that the Governor indicated in several discovery responses, most recer.tly on October 9,1981, that "The State alreaqy has produced or is producing all documents which relate to Diablo Canyon." No clain of privilege or other objection to product. ion was cade.
During the Staff's October 21, 1981 visit to the Governor's offices to view tne documents, cert in state respresentatives noted that not all relevant documents were being produced. Staff counsel was handed a short note on Governor Brown's stationary dated that day which stated:
"To Whom it fiay Concern:
4 We are hereby producing all non-privileged docuoents responsive to your request of August lu, 1981."
The catr..unication was signed by L. Wade Rose Deputy Assistant to tne Governor for Energy and the Environment. Needless to say the thirty days provided in 10 CFR 9 E.741 for objections on grounds of privilege or otherwise had long since passed.
It was not until your letter that a list of the documents on 7
which you clata a privilege were identified. As you are aware such objections QS0 if not timely made are waived. Since the Staff's trip to Sacramento was f
planned in advance, with your knowledge, it seems reasonable to me that if o"=>
8111050290 811103 PDR ADOCK 05000275 G
,PDR mw@mcmonsa cm @ ace AnsaenAR J;nEy2nc-n remy-m_ _ _
ermmwn
p t
w-f g
y 5
y g
Lawrence G. Lanpher, Esq. -
you planned to interpose last minute cbjections you wauld have atteopted to infom us rather than having a note placed with the documents and then expect us to try to place long distance calls back to your Washington office to ascertain the nature and number of privilege objections. Further I think it is entirely reasonable for Staff counsel to rely on representations con-cerning the documents made by members of tbc Governor's staff who were present during the Staff's visit.
Since you have characterized our Friday telephone conversation in your letter dnd then disagreed with the position you ascribe to me, I will state the f acts as I understand them.
1.
fio conference call with the Licensing Board was arranged.
A time at which the Board would be available for a confer-ence call in the event one was necessary was ascertained.
I specifically told you this in our conversation on Friday, October 23.
2.
George Johnson, Staff counsol, inforued me that you had told him to expect four to six file drawers of OES naterials in your phone conversation with hia on October 16, 1981. Three boxes of DES naterials were actually available, one of which was a stack of reprinted training caterials.
3.
One docuaent had a transaittal note ripped off at the staple with only the "To:" portion left attached.
The transaittal note has not been identified as a document for which any l
privilege had been clained.
4.
No documents concerning the Governor's advisory coamittee and Diablo were produced, lio contracts or coaaunications with contractors were produced although the Governor's representative, fir. Rose, aduitted there were such con-trac 5.
Ann Flook, identified as a staff aember in the Governor's
\\
office, hed indicated previously that she had identified numerous docunents subject to discovery requests; only a very few documents identifying !is. Flook were produced.
6.
ho docunents showing connunications to or from the Governor concerning er.ergency planning at Diablo were produced in Sacramento.
- 7.
bocuments of several state agencies tasked with writing SOPS (See your SeptenDer 5,1981 letter to the Board) were not included in the documents produced.
Since we will be in Sacraaento this week for depositions, we will atteupt to resolve these probleas while we ore there. liowever, in spite of our several omerd.
""" Y om>
O M MVd'DMNM.M $
t g*,
9
'e L y
.y N
Lewrence C. Lanpher, Esq.-
phone conversations since your-letter. I am not certain-that intervention by the Licensing Board can be avoided as you requested unless substantial progress.is made in Sacramento this week.
Sincerely.
William J. Olmstead Deputy Chief Hearing Co*2nsel-4 1
L 4
i 4
?
i t
s 4
i P'
4 k
j s
7
.t k
4 g
s.
g_
c.
. omer g OELD
......g.._.
- sunsurg. W. 0..l m..sk......: anlb....
DATA >
I I./. 02/. 81...
4 USGPO 1980-329-824