ML20052C229

Motion for Protective Order to Protect from Discovery, Privileged Matters,Confidential Atty Work Product & Matters Beyond Scope of Hearing.Conditionally Admitted Contentions Should Not Be Subj of Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20052C229
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/28/1982
From:	Guild R GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8205040517
Download: ML20052C229 (6)

Text

- - - _ _ _ _ _

, ..~ ,

y e  %

D::,

(

2- D ED 7 a m I982

\ anor*uera%a mr  % m8.n s

,0 /H :7

~

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA rac NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g g O 6 BEFORE'THE ATOMIC-SAFETY AND LICENSING: BOAR In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket No. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

PALMETTO ALLIANCE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Under provisions of 10 CFR Sections 2.740 g seq., Intervenor Palmetto Alliance hereby moves for a protective order to limit the scope, subjects, methods and tems of discovery by the Applicants Duke Power Company, et al.,

so as to protect Intervenor from discovery of priveleged matters, confidential materials prepared by Intervenor's attorney for hearing; matters beyond the scope of the pending proceeding, and discovery to which Palmetto Alliance has asserted objections in its Response to Applicants First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, served herewith and incorporated by reference herein. Such order is sought to protect Palmetto Alliance l

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression and undue burden or expense in the compilation and production of matters not properly discoverable as sought by Applicants.

Palmetto Alliance asks that the scope of discovery presently sought by Applicants be limited to only those contentions expressly the subject of revision after discovery by July 6, 1982: Palmetto Alliance Contentions

! 6, 7,18, 25, 40 and 43 (CESG 13 and 17) as provided in the Board Memorandum ,

(M l 8205040517 820428 r ip l ,

gDRADOCK05000

i and Order of March 5, .1982, at page 40; and that Palmetto Alliance not be required to respond to discovery sought by Applicants with respect to Palmetto Alliance Contentions 3, 4, 26, and 35, which generally involve the subject of emergency planning and are each admitted only conditionally subject to revision by Intervenor upon receipt of the yet unpublished emergency plans.

Applicants have propounded some 441 " General" and " Specific" Interroga-tories, together with Requests for Production of "any and all documents, of whatsoever description, identified in the responses to the Applicants' Interrogatories." Of these Intervenor objects to only the 128 regarding the emergency planning contentions for which no plans yet exist.

Preparation of the answers to all remaining interrogatories and requests for production has entailed extraordinary hardship, burden, time and expense by Intervenor, its members, staff and counsel. Response at I

present to these additional interrogatories on subjects not now pending in this proceeding would entail additional burden and expense and would yield virtually no useful infonnation. t Palmetto Alliance has demonstrated diligence in meeting the reasonable obligations of participation in this proceeding. It acknowledges its duty to do so. However, Applicants' discovery offensive against this Intervenor -

l largely on subjects for which virtually all infonnation known to Intervenor has already been fully disclosed on the record of the prehearing conference -

borders on the sort of harassment from which this party should be protected.

Palmetto Alliance commits itself to abide the spirit of the discovery rules -

to disclose information known to it which bears on the case and thereby i 2

i

r u avoid trial by surprise. It asks the same of the Applicants with regard to the information they possess which is material to this proceeding. Palmetto Alliance urges the Board to prevent use by any party of discovery tools as weapons to harass another or impede orderly litigation instead of facilitating it.

With respect to privileged comunications between counsel and Palmetto Alliance and trial preparation materials including counsel's confidential work prcduct, Palmetto Alliance asks protection from discovery. Palmetto Alliance acknowledges that factual matter, otherwise discoverable, remains so when comunicated to or in the possession of counsel. Such matters are acknowledged and included generally in Intervenor's answers to Applicants' Interrogatories. Palmetto Alliance asks, however, that its confidential comunication - through its members, officers and employees - with its counsel regarding legal opinions and advice be protected from disclosure.

Likewise it seeks by way of protective order the nondisclosure of trial preparation materials including counsel's work product consisting largely of his hand written notes contained in his private files. Such matters are to be protected from discovery. 10 CFR Sections 2.740(b)(1) and (2);

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 SCt. 385, 91 L Ed 451 (1947).

I, For the foregoing reasons Palmetto Alliance asks that a protective order issue as provided herein and that the Board grant such other and l

l L

l further relief as is just and reasonable.

Respectfully submitted, w

April 28, 1982 Robert Guild v 314 Pall Mall Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Attorney for Palmetto Alliance l

i i

t I

i l 4

t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, ~ et al. ) Docket No. 50 413

~ - ~ ~

) 50-414 (CatawbaNuclearStation, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t

i I

I hereby certify that copies of Palmetto Alliance Responses to Applicants' First Set of ~ l Interrogatories and Requests to Produce and Motion for Protective Order in the above captioned matters, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this ;tt_th day of April 1982.

James L. Kelley, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William L. Porter, Esq.

Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Albert .V, Carr, Jr. , Esq. . i Union Carbide Corporation Ellen T. Ruff, Esq.

P.O. Box Y Duke Power Campany Dak Ridge, Tennessee 27830 P.O. Box 33189 l Charlotte, North Carolina 28242

! Dr. Richard R. Foster P.O. Box 4263 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Sunriver, Oregon 97701 Assistant Attorney General Chairman State of South Carolina Atomic Safety and Licensing P,0. Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211~

Board Panel '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission  !

Washington, D.C. 20555

l Chairman Jesse L. Riley Atomic Safety and Licensing 854 Henley flace Appeal Board Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,

Comission Scott Stucky  ;

Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Station U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Henry A. Presler Comission Charlotte-Mecklenburg Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Coalition 943 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207

(

J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

\

i i d Rot $rt 5 uild V Attorney for Palmetto Alliance

(

t I

t i

.,-,a w b -, n --,, .-