ML20073Q063

Certificate of Negotiations,Documenting Agreements Reached W/Applicants Re Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20073Q063
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	04/20/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8304280134
Download: ML20073Q063 (4)

Text

yh,,

aELATED CORRESPO.WWCB

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA April v23,1983

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$35F BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N

Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter i,.

.,. 7,"4 _

James L. Kelley, Chairman sild '

In the Matter of J

Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al.

)

50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,

)

Units 1 ani 2)

)

ASLBP No. 82-h68-01

)

OL CERTIFICATE OF NEGOTIATIONS by Wells-Eddleman 1.

Applicants and I agreed April 8,1983 that I would not be required to list all species living in the Cape Fear, the ocean near its point of discharge, and all species eating such species.

The answer "all of them" is sufficient.

(Anps' 1st set. Interrogatories re Eddleman 83/8k).

2. We reached essentially the same impasse over objection by me to General Intervo.,atory 2 as we had.on the phone.

O'Neill rtated the Suksouchanna case held my position wrong, but when I asked for a cite he could not give one, and he did.not have a copy of it (nor did he produce one after our lunch break, though I understand CP&L's law library includes a comnlete set of NRC issuances).

I asked O'Neill

.c and Hill Carrow (CP&L's negotiators) to look at the recent order in o o:

issued 3-24-83 docket 50-kh3 ASLBP # 82-h71-02 0.L.)

og Seabrook (slip op, 3-25~,83)/on a simila,r objection. Neither expressed wo 88 any willingness to do so.

I remarked.that they didn't seem to have og g

any interest in even hearing the basis of my objection, or arguments for it.

There was no response to this.

We did agree that a central ex

_ point of my objection is that industry groups (nuclear) may well seek U"

• to. intinidate or harm persons who supply inforr:ation to me. I stated 0

e<.

_2 that there are persons who have refused to provide information to me given that I pannot guarantee their names will not be used.

I have also snoken to a number of persons emoloyed by nuclear firms who were absolutely unwilling to have their names revealed due-to " adverse reaction by my employer" as one out it.

Other bases of my objection, e.g. the availability of expertise to Applicants on the subjech involved, without acess to any persons who may have supplied information to me, were evidently of no interest to Applicants' attorneys.

However, I must note that O'Neill repeatedly stated in discussion of other matters on April 8 that "we can hire the whole world,", "you should assume we can hire any exnerts we need",

't.

"we can hire the world", etc.

I take these as emphatic statements that Applicants have no lack of expertise available to them, upon terms they find reasonable, in any of the subject areas involved in Edis proceeding, or at least that that is their opinion.

O'Neill also stated that Applicants were prepared to litigate every one of the contentions (of mine) at issue, if necessary, and had set up a schedule to do so, and were prepared to hire experts for each in support of summary disposition (by affidavit) for numerous' contentions of mine.

(I have here strung together several things he said at different times, f

but the basic facts are, I think, clearly unchanged above.)

It is clear that Applicants do not perceive a lack of expertise available to them on the subject matter of each and every one of my contentions.

Applicants ' only stated ' interest in having the names of pers' nso

_ providing information to me, that I recall, was for nossible denositions l

of these persons.

I pointed out that even having one's name revealed l

in this proceeding can (and has) expose (d) persons to industry intinida-tion regardless of whether Applicants themselves might act or seek to act to intimidate such person (s).

\\;

i t '

3. The matter of the names in the Molholt letter (Respense to Applicants' second set of interrogs, p. 5) is still under negotiation.

On h-15-83 I suoplied O'Neill with a copy of this item, and of one relating to Eddleman 45 (Water Hanmer) that nostdates 3-21-83, both with names whited out.

I retain originals of both with the names.

O'Neill is to get back in touch with me re this.

4 We agreed on 4-8 that handwritten notes of mine which are not work product, are discoverable.

I have rerviewed the folder mentioned

.in my response to Applicants' first set of interrogatories, and advised 4

0'Neill'k-15-83 that it is all work product or-in the contentions. I have also set handwritten notes (the iten relating to Eddleman h5 cited in 3 above) to him.

I have not completed a further review of handwritten' notes (margins of documents and otherwise) yet because I agreed to give priority in my work responding to Apolicants, to the radiation interrogatories (second set to W.E. and second set to Joint Intervenors).

This was at Applicants' request, because (they stated) their attorney Bauser is pregnant and they wish to finish their sannary disposition under her direction before she has to leave work.

I 54 Applicants and I have agreed that we will provide to each other copies of cross-examination documents to be used by each of us for other parties' witnesses.

This agreement is not a conclusion of law, but a voluntary agreement (at my request).

6. Applicants and I have agreed on various extensions of time for answering each other's interrogatories (my first set to them and their o

i l

second set to me) typically 2 weeks to one month for each of us.

We 1

!~

. continue to negotiate extensions thereof informally, e.g. mine to h-22 l

from k-20 for this response set to be typed and mailed. Applicants' attorney Baxter is to contact me further re response times for the 4Eddleman contentions he is handling (41, part of h[, 65).(my interrogs).

~

. ~..

~..,

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATOPI COMMISSION In the matter of CAROLIKA POWER k LIGHT CO. Et al. )

Dockets 50-h00 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2

)

and 50S01 0.L.

CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE Wph!:

Certificate of Negotiations, and of I hereby certify that copies of wells vaal enn '. %,, nn..

..n.M

( 4 n n7 n ab83, M, "*"~

To Anulicants Interrogatories P 2dseH e vaa

" M--4' 37B An Tpf W.,E. Interrogatjr ep AppliTants 2d set,

. 4 +P in c

' A.11 1981 tby..

i HAVE been served this I

ay of P

g the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose names are narked with an asterisk, for whom service was accomplished by Judge James Kelley. ' '

s

': ;.erm ;

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 George F. Trowbridge (attorney for Auplicants)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge c

1800 M St. NW Washington, DC 20036

.-)

Office of the Executive Legal Director Phyllis Lotchin, Ph.D.

Attn Dockets 50-400/401 O L.

108 Bridle Run Wash $nEton DC 20555

~

NC 2751h USNRC Chanel Hill Dan 9ead Docketing and Service Section CHAILT/ELP Attn Dockets 50-400/401 0.L.

Box 524 Office of the Secretary Chapel Hill NC 27514 USNBC Washington DC 20555 Pat & Slater Newman CAIT John Runkle 2309 Weymouth Court CONC Raleigh NC 27612 307 Granville Rd Chapel Hill Ne 27514

'e r

'Travi s Payne 3

Edelstein & Payne

.: : i m.s.

m'~

^ '

.n..-

Box 126h3 Raleigh NC 27605 Richard Wilson, M.D.

~

Certified by w

729 Hunter St.

Apex NC 27502

~

,-m~,

q er

+ -

w.

y-v-

.w-,,---,.rA-w,-

a

,---w,.

,n..-

-