ML20101M573
| ML20101M573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1984 |
| From: | Remis S, Shapiro R, Thurber J NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
| To: | Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| CON-#185-885 OL, NUDOCS 8501030154 | |
| Download: ML20101M573 (22) | |
Text
-
'I CELATED CORRESPONDEg C?: dUr1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and LicensingNUd Or h PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND :
GAS COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-354-OL (Hope Creek Generating Station)
RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENOR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND -
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
- 1. INTRODUCTION On December 13, 1984, the Public Advocate served upon the Applicants
- his "Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents."
This discovery request includes interrogatories and document requests relating to each of Intervenor's three admitted contentions.
At the status conference in this matter held on December 17, 1984, the Board directed that all discovery be completed by January 31, 1985.
The Board further directed Applicants to file their responses to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documents not later than December 27, 1984. Counsel for all parties were encouraged to attempt to resolve discovery disputes informally.
Pursuant to the Board's directive, counsel for Intervenor engaged in two lengthy telephone conversations with counsel for Applicants on December 18 and 19,1984. These discussions were designed to resolve informally any disputes relating to the scope of the Public Advocate's second set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents.
Odho!ag$jj4 PDR
.,, t In more than thirty instances, the Applicants' objections were resolved by a rephrasing or narrowing of the interrogatory or document request in question. See letter dated December 20, 1984, from Jessica Laverty to -
_ _3 Richard Shapiro (Attachment 1); letter dated December 28,1984, from Richard Shapiro to Jessica Laverty (Attachment 2).
The Applicants' only objection that could not be resolved informally concerned document request IV. 25. This request seeks information relevant to Intervenor's " Management Competence Contention," specifically, the evaluations or asse,ssments of the job performance of key Nuclear De- ,
partment and Hope Creek management officials.* This document request was the subject of discussions between counsel for applicants and counsel
- Document request IV. 25 requests that Applicants "[p]rovide copies of all . . . writings relating to the evaluation or assessment of the job
. performance of the following employees:
(a) vice-president - nuclear (b) assistant vice-president - nuclear operations support (c) general manager - nuclear engineering (d) manager - nuclear licensing and reliability (e) personnel affairs manager - nuclear (f) assistant vice-president - nuclear operations (g) general manager'- Hope Creek operations (h) general manager - Salem 182 operations (i) general manager - nuclear services (j) manager - outage services (k) general manager - nuclear safety review (1) general manager - nuclear quality assurance (m) Hope Creek station general manager (n) Hope Creek assistant general manager (o) Hope Creek station operations manager (p) all Hope Creek senior nuclear shift supervisors (q) all Hope Creek nuclear . shift supervisors (r) all Hope Creek nuclear control operators (s) all Hope Creek equipment operators j (t) Hope Creek technical manager (u) Hope Creek maintenance manager (v) Hope Creek radiation protection engineer (w) Hope Creek startup manager Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents,Section IV. at 5-6.
l t
for Intervenor on both December 18 and 19,1984. On December 18, 1984, counsel for Applicants stated that they objected to this request s 3
on the ground that the requested documents were confidential and therefore privileged materials. Applicants refused Intervenor's offer to discuss the scope or phrasing of this document because the Applicants considered all of the materials sought by this request to be privileged.
f; The Intervenor's offer to again discuss this matter on December 19, 1984, j was similarly refused.*
. On December 21, 1984, Applicants served their " Objections to ' Inter-l venor's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docu-ments to Applicants' and Motion for Protective Order" (hereinafter "Appli-cants' Objections"). In this submission to the Board, Intervenor will
, briefly outline the reasons why the information sought in document request IV. 25 should be provided.
- Intervenor is compelled to correct a statement in the Applicants' Objec-tions that creates a misleading impression of these discussions on Document Request IV. 25 between the ' Applicants and Intervenor. The Applicants state that the Public Advocate refused to modify this document request in response to their objections (Applicants' Objections at 7). This assertion is patently
! untrue. It is the Applicants, not the Public Advocate, who have refused to engage in any limiting discussions on the scope of this request, since they have always maintained that the requested information is privileged.
Therefore, the Applicants mislead the Board in suggesting a lack of co-operation on the part of the Intervenor.
Indeed, in order to avoid any further misrepresentation of our posi-tion, the Public Advocate states that if the Applicants' privilege claim is rejected, as precedent of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board indicates it must, the Intervenor will still be willing to discuss with the Applicants any reasonable objections to the scope of this request for documents.
i
ARGUMENT Documents Relating to the Evaluation or Assessment Of The Job Performance of PSE&G's Nuclear Depart- s ment Management and Hope Creek Management Are h Clearly Discoverable In This Proceeding The Intervenor seeks documents " relating to the evaluation or assess-ment of the job performance" of certain key management officials in PSE&G's Nuclear Department and at Hope Creek in order to prepare for the portion of the operating license hearing which concerns the management competence of the Applicants.*
Applicants object to this request on three grounds: (1) the request is unduly broad and burdensome and "the information which is relevant to Contention 2 has already been or will be supplied pursuant to the Public .
Advocate's other discovery requests." (Applicants' Objections at page 3);
, (2) the requested documents are confidential and should not be disclosed; and (3) the release of personnel records is not otherwise warranted.**
As Intervenor will explain below, these objections lack any factual basis in the present case or any legal support in Board precedent.
- Specifically, this contention involves consideration of whether PSE&G has fully resolved the management implications of the Salem events of February 22 and 25,1983, and whether the Applicants have taken all steps necessary to achieve and maintain the technical qualifications re-quired for the safe operation of Hope Creek as a result of these incidents.
- This ground is principally a restatement of assertions previously made in the Applicants' other two arguments. The sole additional argument is patently without merit (see page 6, infra.).
- 1. The Assertion That The Request For Production Is Unduly -
Burdensome And Broad Is Premature And Without Any Basis Initially, Applicants devote a considerable portion of their argument th the assertion that the request for production of documents is unduly broad and burdensome. (Applicants Objections at 3-7). This argument is disin-genuous at best.
In accordance with the Board's directive at the status conference on December 17, 1984, Intervenor and Applicants discussed at length the Intervenor's second set of interrogatories and requests for production -
of documents. In more than thirty instances, the Public Advocate agreed to narrow the scope of his interrogatories and requests for production of documents in response to the Applicants' objections.
During these discussions, the Applicants presented their objections to Question IV. 25, and the Intervenor expressed a willingness to discuss any way in which this document request could be more limited in scope without sacrificing the Intervenor's ability .to cbtain information that is necessary for the pre-hearing development of Contention 2. Applicants rejected the Intervenor's invitation and instead made the blanket assertion that the information sought by the Public Advocate is confidential and therefore privileged.
In light of this background, the Applicants have clearly not asserted
! a_t the present time any basis for a protective order on the ground of an unduly broad or burdensome request for production of documents. Until they have demonstrated that the Intervenor has been unwilling to engage in any discussions to limit the scope of the request or that there is no way in which the request could be appropriately limited -- a showing which cannot be made on the present record (see page 3, supra) --
Applicants should not be entitled to relief from the Board on these grounds.
3 Even putting aside the fact that the Applicant refused to discuss with the Public Advocate any overbreadth problems with Request IV. 25, the Applicant still fails to demonstrate that Request IV. 25 is, in fact, over-broad. The ultimate test to determine the proper scope of discovery is one of relevance, since a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding. 10 CFR S2.740(b)(1). The Applicants, however, fail to demonstrate that Request IV. 25 is overbroad since the requested documents are clearly relevant to determine whether PSE&G is able to .
identify management problems and take the necessary corrective action
, to assure the safe operation of a nuclear facility (See, infra at pages 9-10). In fact, the Applicants never explain why it is. their opinion that Request IV. 25 is overly broad. Since the Applicants do not cite any specific defect with the scope of Request IV. 25, it is impossible for the Intervenor to take any steps to narrow the breadth of this document request.
If anything, the Applicants' request for a protective order reveals that there are, in fact, no modifications that will suit them, since their essential claim is one of privilege and not undue breadth. It is here that Applicants' objections ignore well-established principles of discovery and long-standing Board precedent.
- 2. The Requested Documents Are Discoverable Even Though The Applicants Assert That They Contain Confidential Material Since The Information Sought By The Intervenor Is Clearly Relevant To A Contention Before The Board ,'_ 3 It is well established that discovery is liberally granted in operating license proceedings to enable the parties to ascertain necessary facts, refine and narrow the relevant issues, and adequately prepare for complex litigation. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452, 455 (1981); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490, -
494 (1983); 10 C.F.R. 92.740(b). Discovery is permissible even if the information requested is inadmissible at the hearing provided that the material. being sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the dis-covery of relevant admissible evidence.* 10 C.F.R. $2.704(b)(1).
~
- The Applicants apparently ignore these well-settled principles of discovery in suggesting that (1) the requested documents need not be produced because "the information which is relevant to Contention 2 has already been or will be supplied pursuant to the Public Advocate's other discovery requests" (Applicants Objections at p. 3); and (2) this infor-mation "could lead to the consideration of extraneous matters and lengthen the hearing process." (Id. at 11).
The Applicants cannot evade a legitimate request for discovery by asserting that all relevant information has been or will be provided to the Intervenor. The Intervenor is entitled to discovery of any relevant information that he demonstrates is necessary to prepare for the operating license proceeding; this principle is turned on its head by Applicants' suggestion that they have the authority to limit discovery by determining what information the Intervenor needs to prepare and present his contention.
Moreover, the scope of discovery is not co-extensive with the scope of admissibility of evidence at a hearing, and the Board has full authority to impose limitations on the nature and scope of evidence that is admissible at the operating license proceeding. Applicants objections are, therefore, revealed as nothing more than specious efforts to avoid well-established discovery obligations.
A party who objects to a discovery request on grounds of privilege must bear the burden of proving that it is entitled to such protection.
Public Service Company of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 s 2
and 2), LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490, 495 (1983); Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144,1153 (1982). Evidentiary privileges must be construed narrowly since they work to keep relevant and otherwise admissible evidence from the trier of fact.
As the Supreme Court of the United States stated:
whatever their origins, [ privileges against disclosure]
are not lightly created nor expcnsively construed, for -
they are in derogation of the search for truth.
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S.153,175 (1979), quoting United States v.
Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974).
Applicants seek to satisfy this burden by merely asserting in conclu-sory terms that the material requested by the Intervenor contains con-fidential information. ( Applicants' Objections at 7-11). In proffering this objection, the Applicants misread the Intervenor's request and again ignore well-settled legal principles.* Cf. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), supra,17 NRC at 495.
First, contrary to the Applicants' construction, the Intervenor's re-quest for documents is not limited to information contained in PSE&G's personnel files. Instead, the request seeks certain writings related to the evaluation of job performance of specific key management officials.
Such material is not necessarily contained only in personnel files. There-fore, the assertion of privilege is not co-extensive with the Intervenor's 4
- Applicants intimate that this information is privileged from discovery because PSE&G has always considered these documents confidential (Appli-cants' Objections at 2 and 10). Certainly, as the Board's decisions demonstrate, the Applicants cannot bootstrap themselves into a claim of privilege by the manner in which the company labels the material for internal purposes.
request for production of documents, and the Applicants have failed to provide any sound reason for refusing to disclose information outside the scope of the asserted privilege. h Second, and of more importance, the Applicants have no legal basis for evading discovery through the assertion of a claim of confidentiality.
Board decisions unequivocally establish that documents may be confidential and immune from public disclosure, but if relevant, must nevertheless be made available through an appropriate protective order. Indeed, the licensing board in Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-81-61,14 NRC 1735 (1981) held:
Personnel files . . . are held in confidence by employers.
The information is sensitive in that its disclosure may be ,
regarded as an undue and actionable invasion of the pri-vacy of the person involved. The information can be obtained in this proceeding under a protective order if
, it is shown to be relevant to the contention.
Id. at 1740. [ Emphasis supplied]. Therefore, the litmus test for an as-sertion of privilege is not, as the Applicants suggest, whether the infor-mation is " confidential," but rather whether it is " relevant to the contention."
Ld. .
Clearly, the information requested in document request IV. 25 is directly relevant to the issues that the Intervenor raises in Contention 2.
Intervenor seeks, by this request, PSE&G's own evaluations or assess-ments of the work-related performance of several key Nuclear Department and Hope Creek management officials. The request also seeks any evalua-tions or assessments of these officials by any other party that may be in PSE&G's custody or control. The information contained in these evaluations will play a critical role in Intervenor's case on Contention 2. The NRC staff stated in the Salem Restart SER that "[h]istorically, . . . PSE&G
_g.
management has not displayed the expected aggrcssive effort to self-evaluate and redirect efforts to correct internally identified problems."
Salem Restart SER, April 28,1983 (NUREG-0995) at 37. Further, the s s
staff identified two factors as "the principal causes of the (Salem]
events": first, "a perceived lack of resolve on the part of managers and supervisors in enforcing adherence to procedures by station personnel,"
and second, "the safety perspective displayed by corporate management in providing policy direction and priorities to the operating staff and the three existing review committees." M. at 38-39 (emphasis added).
The NRC has thus already identified PSE&G's failure to evaluate management performance in a proper manner and to enforce adherence to sound safety standards through this evaluative process as fundamental .
flaws in management that contributed to the ATWS incident on February o 22 and 25,1983. The information sought by Intervenor is, therefore, critical to determine the nature and extent of remedial measures to resolve "the management implications" of these events. (Contention 2). An examination of the job evaluations of these key management officials dating from both before and after the Salem events will obviously be essential in determining whether PSE&G has indeed learned the ' lessons' of Salem.
A review of these documents is essential to determine whether or not PSE&G " display (s) the expected aggressive effort (s] to self-evaluate . . .
and correct internally identified problems." Id. at 37. These documents will also demonstrate whether PSE&G management now has the necessary resolve to "enforc[e] adherence to procedures by station personnel" and the willingness to provide "the safety perspective" that the NRC previously found lacking. Id. at 38-39. Unless PSE&G demonstrates that it has rectified these serious management deficiencies, it will have failed to take "all steps necessary to achieve and maintain the technical qualifi-cations required for the safe operation of Hope Cceek as a result of these incidents." Id_ . See 10 CFR 5550.56 and 50.57. The information ~
~~
requested is thus specifically and directly relevant to the issues raised by Contention 2. ,
Since the requested information is clearly relevant to determine whether PSE&G was able to identify management problems and take the necessary corrective action to assure the safe operation of a nuclear facility, the requested documents are discoverable and the Applicants' interest can be fully protected by an appropriate protective order.
This approach is fully consistent with NRC prccedent. On numerous occasions, licensing and appeal boards have issued protective orders to preserve the disclosing party's interests and at the same time provide necessary, confidential information to the party seeking discovery. See, eg. , Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-327, 3 NRC 408, 411 (1976) (protective order required applicants to disclose confidential commercial information to intervenors); and Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1), LBP-83-16,17 NRC 479, 484 (1983) (protective order required intervenor to disclose confidential membership information to applicant). A similar approach is clearly warrhnted in the circumstances of the instant case.
In light of this overwhelming legal authority, it is not surprising that [pplicants fail to cite any cases which refute the basic principle that relevant, confidential material must be disclosed subject to an ap-propriate protective order which protects the interests of all parties.
J.
E Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-24, supra, Kansas Gas and Electric Com-pany (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-327, supra.
Nor do Applicants provide any " concrete showing, through appropriate affidavits rather than counsel's rhetoric, of potential harm" if confidential s
~
material is disclosed under a protective order. Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-735,18 NBr 19, 26 (1983). Applicants do not even assert that they would be harmed by the limited disclosure of the IV 23 documents under the terms of an appropriate protective order.
I Rather, Applicants place great reliance on the case Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1),
ALAB-327, 3 NRC 408 (1976). In that case, however, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued a protective order that required the ,
applicant to disclose confidential material to the intervenors' counsel and a technical experts. I_d. at 411. The appeals board simply ordered that the confidential information was not to be further disseminated by them. I d_.
at 411. Instead of supporting the Applicants' assertion of privilege, Wolf Creek actually substantiates the Intervenor's claim that the Applicants should be compelled to respond in full to the IV. 25 discovery request.
The other cases Applicants cite are wholly irrelevant in view of the Board's well-developed practice when claims of privilege are asserted.*
- These cases do not even concern NRC practice and give this Board no guidance on how to resolve the present discovery dispute. Missoulian
- v. Board of Regents of liigher Education, Mont. , 675 P.2d 962 (1984) (interpretation of the Montana Constitution and the Montana Open Meeting Act, 92-3-203, MCA, to determine if these laws included a right to privacy); Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 440 U.S. 301 (1979) (review of the remedial discretion of the National Labor Relations Doard under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.
96151-158); Trenton Times Corp. v. Board of Education,138 N.J. Super.
357 (App.Div.1976) (construction of the New Jersey Right to Know Law, N.J.S. A. 47:1A-2, in light of New Jersey Executive Orders 9 and 11);
and Wylie v. Mills,195 N.J. Super. 332 (Law Div.1984) (interpretation of the New Jersey common law on privileges in the context of an automobile accident case). The Public Advocate fails to understand the relevancy of these cases to the instant proceeding.
In sum, the Applicants have failed to cite any precedent or provide any credible reason for the Board to depart from its well-established practice of authorizing disclosure of confidential information pursuant to s B
an appropriate protective order.
CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Public Advocate respectfully requests that the Applicants' objections to document request IV. 25 and their motion for a blanket protective order be denied. To the extent that .
Applicants have asserted a valid claim of privilege with respect to per-sonnel files, they have failed to justify any departure from the Board's practice of requiring disclosure subject to an appropriate protective order.
In the present case, the legitimate interests of Applicants and the Inter-
. venor can be fully served by a protective order that limits disclosure to the Intervenor, his counsel and his technical experts.
Respectfully submitted,
% f M/+
Richard E. Shapiro '
$9 Susan C. Remis '
~
~ P. Thurber V
Dated: December 28, 1984 t
1 i LAW OFFICES CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
A 1747 PENNSYLVANI A AVENUE. N. W.
7:07 5. cowWEn. Ja. WASHINGTON. D. C. SOOOe 5'[..t'nI..m5'n'le'le"*""
- m. 6. =
December 20, 1984 0*f"."d!""" N 1
! 3Ed**"A.'"' .#
l CERNMARD0 SECNMOEFEN CADLE ADDRESS: ATONLA.r
.. :. ,;C .. . S.
I Mr.' Richard E. Shapiro l Drrector Division of Public Interest FEDERAL EXPRESS I
- Advocacy .,
- Department of the Public j Advocate 1 CN 850 '
i Trenton, New Jersey 08625 ,
4 1 In the Matter of
' i
- Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Hope Creek Generating Station)
L Docket No. 50-354 ,
i
{
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
1' l .
This letter confirms our telephone conversations of '
- December 18 and 19, 1984 during which you and John Thurber l of your office discussed with Richard Fryling and me Appli-cants' objections to "Intervenor's Second Set of Interroga-
, tories and Request for Production of Documents to Appli- !
l cants," dated December 13, 1984 (See Transcript of Prehear- l ing Conference, December 17, 1984 at page 375). This letter j identifies all the agreements we reached on eliminating or j modifying the discovery requects contained therein.
i i We agreed that, as admitted by the Atomic Safety and
! Licensing Board in its Special Prehearing Conference Order of December 21, 1983, the scope of Contention 1 is limited to recirculation piping. Thus, we agreed that wherever the ;
i word " piping" appears in an interrogatory or request for i production of documents in Sections I and II of the Public !
I Advocate's December 13, 1984 discovery request, that inter- l
! rogatory or request is modified by the insertion of the word i
" recirculation" before the word " piping."
j
! Similarly, with regard to Interrogatories I.28 and !
I.29, we agreed to delete the word " systems" and to substi- i tute " recirculation piping" for that word. l
^
t l With regard to Interrogatory I.30, we agreed that Applicants will respond only to the first sentence in that interrogatory by providing its " flaw evaluation criteria for j
t l ATTACHMENT 1 l t
i
Mr. Richcro E. Shcpiro December 20, 1984 Page 2 IGSCC." Similarly, the Public Advocate agreed to withdraw Interrogatory I.31. h With regard to Interrogatories I.33 and I.34, we agreed that the Applicants' response to these questions would be that the interrogatories are irrelevant because costs to implement necessary safety requirements or modifications are irrelevant. ,
similarly, with regard to Request II.7, .we agreed that .
Applicants would respond that the requested information is irrelevant because costs to implement necessary safety requirements or modifications are irrelevant. ,
With regard to Interrogatory III.4, we agreed to reword the interrogatory as follows: " Identify and describe all ,
management-related causes identified by PSE&G and its consultants of the ATWS incidents of February 22 and 25,
- 1983 at the Salem Generating Station." .
With regard to Interrogatory III.11, we agreed to reword the first sentence of the interrogatory as follows:
" Identify each instance in which NRC Staff met with PSE&G personnel after February 25, 1983, to discuss issues related to the management-related causes of the ATWS events on February 22 and 25, 1983 or to the management of Hope Creek, including but. not limited to PSE&G administration, quality assurance, personnel matters, staffing levels, training, -
philosophy of management, staff or management experience, management failures or human error."
With regard to Interrogatory III.12, we agreed that all references to " staff" are deleted from subsections a-d and subsection h of this interrogatory. Additionally, in sub-section e, we agreed to insert the word " management" before the word " liaison." The Public Advocate also agreed to withdraw subsection g. Finally, we agreed to insert the word " management" before the word " performance" in sub-section k.
With regard to Interrogatory III.16, we agreed to reword the interrogatory as follows: " Identify all indi-viduals and departments within PSE&G and all individuals and organizations outside PSE&G that have evaluated in writing PSE&G's Nuclear Department or its management of the op-erations of either the Salem or Hope Creek Generating Stations."
Mr.~Richcrd E. Shspiro Deccaber 20, 1984 Page 3 With regard to Interrogatory III.25, we agreed .to insert the words "as they apply to Hope Creek" before the word " contained. ,
With regard to Interr,Igatory III.28, we agreed to insert the words "[at Hope / reek)" af ter the word " require-ments" in the first sente%ce of that interrogatory and to insert the words "at Hope Creek" after the word " changes" in the second sentence of that interrogatory.
+
With regard to Interrogatory III.29, we agreed to rewrite the interrogatory as follows: " Describe what offorts have been undertaken by PSE&G to reduce the number of unplanned reactor trips at Hope Creek as recomunended by'-
BETA with regard to Salem Generating Station at page 16 of its May 27, 1983 report."
With regard to Interrogatory. III.30, we agreed to "
insert the words "at Hope Creek" before the word "as." .
With regard to Interrogatory III.33, we agreed to insert the words "at Hope Creek" after the word "taken" in the first line and to substitute the word " prevent" for the word " remedy" in the second line of that interrogatory.
With regard to Request IV.7, we agreed to reword the request as follows: " Provide copies of any and all written letters, notes, reports, memoranda, agreements, minutes, resolutions, applications, analyses, policies, plans, contracts or any other writing subsequent to January 1, 1982 relating to management goals, objectives, or standards at the Salem or Hope Creek Generating Stations."
With regard to Request IV.9, we agreed to delete "and staff" from that request and to add the following language j at the end of the sentence "in effect on February 21, 1983 and any changes in the proposed management organization subsequent to that date."
With regard to Request IV.10, you corrected that request so that it now refers to the SER at page 13-1.
With regard to Request IV.11, we agreed to insert the words " management-related causes of the" before the word
" failures" on the fourth line of the request.
The Public Advocate agreed to withdraw Request IV.12.
Mr. Richard E. Shepiro D:c;mber 20, 1984 Page 4 With regard to Request IV.15, we agreed to add the words "the management of" before the words " Hope Creek" on the third line of that request.
With regard to Request IV.18, we agreed to rewrite that request as follows: " Provide copies of any and all written letters, notes, reports, memoranda, agreements, minutes, resolutions, applications, analyses, policies, plans, contracts, or any other writing by any and 'all consultants discussing the role of PSE&G's nuclear operations, nuclear .
quality assurance, nuclear safety review, and nuclear program in relationship to the ATWS events on February 22 and 25, 1983." ,
With regard to Request IV.19, the Public Advocate agreed to withdraw that request and to review the documenta-tion that the Rate Counsel of the Public Advocate has already received on this issue.
With regard to Request IV.34, we agreed to insert the following language at the end of the request: " relating to non-refueling outages after January 1, 1982."
With regard to Request IV.35, we agreed that Applicants will determine whether this information has already been provided to the Rate Counsel of the Public Advocate. If this information has already been provided to the Rate Counsel, Applicants will so advise the Public Advocate and will treat the request as withdrawn. If it has not already been provided to the Rate Counsel, Applicants will make the information available. -
With regard to Request IV.37, we agreed to add the words "after January 1, 1982" at the end of the request.
With regard to Interrogatory V.6, we agreed ,to add the word " presently" before the word " intend" on line 3 of that interrogatory.
With regard to Interrogatory v.10, we agreed to rewrite that interrogatory as follows: " State whether you have any information that any of the safety-related electrical or mechanical equipment to be used in the Hope Creek Generating Station has ever been identified by the NRC as having experienced a failure under normal or harsh operating conditions at any plant."
8
1
.Mr. Richard E. Shrpiro j D2c:mbar-20, 1984 l Page 5 l l
l With regard to Interrogatory V.14, we agreed to insert the word "[EQ]" before the words "QA/QC Program" in the _i' t, second line of that interrogatory.
With regard to Request VI.10, we agreed to rewrite that request as follows: " Provide copies of any and all written reports, memoranda, agreements, minutes, resolutions, analyses, policies, plans, documents or any other writing relating to which electrical or mechanical equipment, components or subcomponents you presently intend to environ- ,
mentally qualify."
With regard to Request VI.ll, we agreed to rewrite that request as follows: " Provide copies of any and all written'-
reports, memoranda, agreements, minutes, resolutions, analyses, policies, plans, documents or any other writing relating to which electrical or mechanical equipment, components or subcomponents you have determined do not need to be environmentally qualified." .
Finally, I raised Applicants' concern that the Public Advocate promptly supplement and update its responses to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and requested that the Public Advocate promptly apprise Applicants of the documents the Public Advocate's experts intend to rely upon at the hearing. You stated that you have been talking with your experts about this issue and will provide an update to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories next week.
Sincerely, [
i ca. .
- 1D J ssica H. Laverty' Counsel for the Applicants JHL/dlf cc: Service List
{
j -
1 I
l 1
1
. ggem ,
- w. .,
state of Netu flersey DEPARTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE DIVISION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCACY s CN 850 ,3 JC?t*H H. RODRIGUEZ TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08425 RICHAPD E. SWAP:RO DLEL!C ACVOCATE DIRECTOR TEL 609 2521t?3 December 28, 1984 Ms. Jessica H. Laverty Conner & Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006 ,
Re: In The Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Hope Creek. Generating. Station)
Docket No. 50-354
Dear Ms. Laverty:
This letter is to clarify our understanding of the i telephone conversations of December,18 and 19, 1984,- during which you and Richard Fryling of PSE&G discussed with John Thurber and me the Applicants' objections to "Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of ,Docu!6ents to Appli-cants," dated Dece.mber 13, 1984. This letter sets forth each instance in which the agreements we reached are not fully or accurately reflected in your confirmatory letter of December 20, 1984.
With regard to the second paragraph of the first page of your letter, we do not recall agreeing to the scope of Conten-tion One. Our agreement was limited to the specific wording of several interrogatories and document requests in Sections I and
$ II, as you indicated in the second sentence of that paragraph. We did not intend by these discussions to express any opinion as to the scope of contention One.
With regard to Interrogatory I. 30, we further agreed that af ter the Public Advocate has evaluated the Applicants' answer to the first sentence of this interrogatory, he will have the oppor-tunity to follow-up with further interrogatories on that issue.
With regard to Interrogatories I. 33 and I. 34, your letter differs from our understanding of the agreement we reached on December 19, 1984. Our notes indicate that Richard Fryling had proposed the following response to this interrogatory to which both we and you had agreed:
ATTACHMENT 2 New Jersey is An Equal Opportwrity Employer
t
/
- s. - .
~
d Ms. Jessica H. Laverty December 28,' 1984 t
" Irrelevant. Applicants will not raise 22L economic infeasibility in this proceeding."
j Similarly, we agreed that in response to Request II. 7, you would respond: "See answer to interrogatory I. 33 and I. 34."
) With regard to Interrogatory III. 30, we agreed to rewrite the interrogatory as follows:
i
.! " Describe all steps taken to ' integrate more fully the nuclear engineering organi-i zation into plant operations' at Hope Creek ,*
as recommended by. BETA w_ith, respect' j;o the j
l Salem Generatina Station 31 p_a_qg,1_),gf,its f Hay. 21, 1183, reoort." ,
l With regard to Request IV.19, we agreed that.the. ,
Public Advocate would withdraw this document requist.pending our review of the documents in the possession 'of the Rate Counsel.
}
$ With regard to Request IV. 25, you ' stated on both f December 18 and 19 that Applicants were not willing to discuss
- any possible modifications of this request due to your position
' that all of the documents requested by Intervenor were privileged.
}
Finally, with regard to:. Interrogatory V.10, we further i agreed to delete the words "at any plant."
I hope that this letter clarifies the Intervenor's I -
understanding of the nature and scope of our agreements relating to the second set of interrogatories and requests for produ6 tion of documents.
Sincerely,-
}
Richard E. Shapiro Director
! RES/ap j cc Service List i -
I I
i . _
EDCon.,yry,
~-
y ~_ . - ,: ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO SSJO 4gg Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board c:: r n ;h c.. .
C2 >.i Jg^5 SE "
h' t PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC
~
AND GAS COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-354-OL (Hope Creek Generating Station)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Response to the Applicants' Objections to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and Motion for Protective Order," dated December 28, 1984, in the above-captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail on this 28th day of December,1984:
~ '
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission East-West West Building Docketing and Service West Tower, Room 408 Section 4350 East-West Highway Office of the Secretary Bethesda, Maryland 20814 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Dr. Peter A. Morris Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Lee Scott Dewey, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director East-West West Building U. S. Nuclear Regulatory West Tower, Room 408 Commission 4350 East-West Highway Washington, DC 20555 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
- ZAP Mail
e .>.
. ~
- Dr. David R. Schink Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West West Building West Tower, Room 408
- m 4350 East-West Highway --"
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Richard Fryling, Jr. , Esq.
Associate General Counsel Public Service Electric & Gas Company P. O. Box 570 (TSE)
Newark, NJ 07101
- Troy Conner, Jr. , Esq.
Conner & Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Ave. , N.W. ,
Suite 1050 .
Washington, DC 20006 Peter Hess, Esq.
Dept. of National Resources and Environmental Control -
Legal Office 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19901 Mr. Ken Koschek Planning Group Department of Environmental Protection State of New Jersey CN-402 Trenton, NJ 08625 ERICHARD S &E.EJs SHAPIFOde/s
. December 28, 1984 i
i I
- ZAP Mail