ML20154N001
| ML20154N001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1986 |
| From: | Guild R GUILD, R., ROREM, B. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-396 OL, NUDOCS 8603170168 | |
| Download: ML20154N001 (7) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _
M*.
,mito conat.deonvu%
March 11 8h ! '
p-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fl MAR I 31%5"I$
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k'
Lo "unos Is/)
g 8 ( ;Ij^~NCf BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE!! SING BOARD s
U,; ;y.
In the Matter of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456 U{
)
50-457 a
(Braidwood Nuclear Station.
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
INTERVENORS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740(f), Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, el al., nove to compel discovery from Applicant Conunonwealth Edison Company with respect to certain cortions of Intervenors' Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, Third Set, filed January 24, 1986.
An order corapelling discovery is required on the grounds that the matters sought are relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, are not privileged, and are necessary for the preparation of Intervenors' case.
Intervenors believe that the evidence sought is solely in the control of Edison and is not obtainable by any other 1
rt.e ans.
Counsel for Intervenors and for Applicant have conferred in an effort to resolve disputes arising from the third set of interrogatories and document requests.
Such discussions have M$
NR AD M
g PDR bS03
o
. l led to the informal resolution of some disputed matters and efforts continue to resolve others.
However, as to the matters which are the subject of this Motion to compel discovery, efforts to reach agreement have been unsuccessful.
Intervenors seek to compel discovery as to specific Interrogatories Nos.10 and 13, to which Applicant has inter-posed objections and has provided responses which are incomplete.
Interrogatory No. 10 reads:
10.
Please identify and describe in detail any and all studies, inquiries, reviews or evaluations of the effectiveness of, results and conclusions of the Braidwood Construction Assessment Program (BCAP); the " top twenty" corrective action programs at Braidwood identified in the April 3, 1985, correspondence from David H. Smith to James G.
Keppler; and the " Ongoing Corrective Action Program" identified in Appendix B to the BCAP June 1984 program description transmitted by James J. O'Connor to James G. Keppler by letter of June 22, 1984.
As to each please detail the purpose and objectives, organization, methodology, procedures, staffing, implementation, results and conclusions of each, Please identify any documents which reflect these answers.
I Interrogatory No. 13 reads:
13.
Describe in detail any and all work performed by Torrey Pines Technology, or other organication of similar name, with respect to the quality assurance contention, or any corrective action arogram including but not limited to the Safety-Related Mechanical Equipment corrective action I
program.
As to such work, please detail the purpose and obj ectives, organization, methodology, t
I
procedures, staffing, implementation, results i
and conclusions.
Please identify any documents which reflect these answers and make available i
such documents for inspection and copying.
j l
Applicant has objected to these interrogatories on the asserted grounds that the matters included in these interrogator-ies and associated document requests are " protected by the work product privilege."
In its February 11, 1986, Third Partial response to specific Interrogatory 10, Applicant asserts:
"[A]pplicant obj ects to and declines to answer this interrogatory to the extent that it requests identification and descriptions of any studies, inquiries, reviews or evaluations protected by the work product privilege."
Id., p. 1.
In its First Partial response of February 7, 1986, Applicant asserts:
"(T]orrey Pines Technology has been employed at Braidwood exclusively by the law firm of Isham, Lincoln & Beale to provide expert assistance to Isham, Lincoln & Beale in its preparation for litigation of this case.
Thus, all work or activities performed by TPT by ILAB are protected by the work product privilege."
Id, p. 3.
Intervenors do not seek the disclosure of the mental expressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of Applicant's counsel.
However, we do seek, and are entitled to discovery of - we believe - the basic facts regarding the effectiveness of the corrective action programs at Braidwood.
e e i i
Such basic facts which are otherwise discoverable are not immune from disclosure simply because they pass through the hands of counsel.
Intervenors understand that the drafts of certain corrective action reports may have been prepared in anticipation of liti-gation by counsel in some part.
If these corrective action reports are to be relied upon by Applicant or the NRC Staff t
in support of any claim or defense, such draft documents must be discoverable; or in the least, counsel's part in their prepara-tion must be clearly delineated.
Intervonors have sought, and Applicant has declined to make available, documents reflecting the nature and scope of Torrey Pines' work regarding the Braidwood corrective action programs and any conclusions reached in its evaluations.
We understand that Torrey Pines has performed work regarding the Safety-Related Mechanical Equipment Corrective Action Program which is relevant to the Amended Quality Ansurance Contention.
Intervenors believe we are entitled to require Applicant l
to justify the use of the privilege which it has asserted.
Applicant should provide, specifically, the identity and nature 4
of the subject materials the author; the dates of preparations and the conclusions reacned.
Any contract or agreement, or document reflecting the scope of work to be performed and the timing of the undertaking should also be disclosed.
The need for discovery of the basic facts regarding the effective-ness of the Braidwood corrective action programn is obvioun.
4 1
5-Evaluative information solely in the hands of Applicant can not be obtained by any other practical process by Intervenors who lack both the resources to independent?.y derive and access the raw information needed to obtain this vital information by other means.
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed.2d 451 (1947).
DATuD:
March 11, 1986 Respectfully submitted, ao/L[
Robert Guild One of the Attorneys for Intervenors Rorem, et al.
l Douglass W. Cassel, Jr.
Robert Guild Timo thy W. Wri;;ht, III 109 tiorth
Dearborn,
(11300 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 641-5570
..e3i P s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7'MS I J l $ 5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..d)Q['ny"'
)
7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO ND CLC)
/
/
In the Matter of:
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Nucica: Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of Intervenors '
Motion To Compel Discovery on each party to this proceeding listed on the attached Service List by having said copies placed in envelopes, properly addressed and postaged (first class) and deposited in the U.S. mail at 109 N.
Dearborn,
Chicago, 60602, on this lith day of March, 1986; except that counsel for Edison, Mr. Stahl was served by messenger, and NRC counsel Mr. Treby was served via Federal Express overnight
- delivery, bY M.h Robert Guild I#
BPAIDWOOD SERVICE LIST k
Herbert Grossman, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Chairman and Administrative Judge Peter Thornton, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S.
Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Three First National Plaza Washington D.C.
20555 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Richard F.
Cole Docketing & Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Pegulatocy U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Commission Washing ton D.C.
20555 Washington D.C.
20555 A.
Dixon Callihan C.
Allen Bock, Erg.
Administrative Judge P.O. Box 342 102 Oak Lane Urbana, Illinois 61801 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Bridget Little Forem Stuart Treby, Esq.
117 North Linden Street NRC Staff Counsel Essex, Illinois 60935 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 7335 Old Georgetown Road Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Waller, Evans & Gordon 2503 South Neil Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Champaign, Illinois 61820 i
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Lorraine Creek Suite 1100 Poute 1, Box 182 Washing ton D.C.
20036 Manteno, Illinois 60950 j
Region III Office of Inspection &
Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton D.C.
20555 l
2
}
.