ML20199E222
| ML20199E222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1986 |
| From: | Babb S COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-512 OL, NUDOCS 8603250432 | |
| Download: ML20199E222 (27) | |
Text
- . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .-__-__ ________ _ _____ ________-_______ _________ - ____
pgtSPONN -
EO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- jj N#924 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E<h l();)
In the Matter of )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-456 p
) ~50-457 (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2) )
. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY On January 24, 1986,-Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem et. al. served on Applicant Commonwealth Edison Company their Third Set of Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests to Produce. Applicant filed objections to certain of these interrogatories and sought a protective order with respect to each interrogatory or portion of an interrogatory to which it objected. See Applicant's First Partial Response, dated February 7, 1986, and Applicant's Third Partial Response, dated February 13, 1986. In l
r particular, Applicant objected to Specific Interrogatories l
10 and 13 as requesting information protected by the work j product privilege. In addition, Applicant has provided l Intervenors with an index of documents which Applicant has l
l withheld from production under claim of privilege. See Applicant's Tenth Partial Response to Intervenors' First Set of Q.A. Interrogatories, dated October 9, 1985; Applicant's Fifth Partial Response to Intervenor's Second Set of Q.A.
Interrogatories, dated February 6, 1986; and Supplement to B603250432 060321 6 g3 DR ADOCK O i
Index with Letter to Robert Guild dated March 19, 1986.
By Motion to Compel dated March 11, 1986, Inter-venors seek an order compelling further responses to Specific Interrogatories 10 and 13. Applicant opposes Intervenors' Motion to Compel in its entirety and urges the Licensing Board to issue an appropriate protective order as requested by Applicant on February 7, 1986 and February 13, 1986.
I. Intervenors' Motion To Compel Does Not Address The Necessary Requirements To Overcome A Claim Of Privilege Intervenors appear to claim that they are entitled to discover privileged material-because these materials contain " basic facts" which are not immune from disclosure.
For instance, Intervenors seem to assert that they are entitled to information concerning Torrey Pines Technology's services for Isham, Lincoln & Beale because Intervenors understand that work to be " relevant to the Amended. Quality Assurance Contention." These assertions ignore the clear language of the Commission's regulations governing discovery:
" Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding." 10 CFR S 2.740 (b) (1) (emphasis added).
Relevance alone is not sufficient to overcome a claim of privilege.
Intervenors have not made a sufficient showing to 1
i overcome Applicants' assertion of the work product privilege.
While Applicant bears the initial burden of establishing a claim of work product privilege, Intervenors may obtain discovery of documents otherwise discoverable and prepared in anticipation of.or for the hearing by. Applicant's attorneys or consultants only upon a showing that the Intervenors have substantial need of the materials in preparation of their case and that they are unable to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means..
10 C.F.R. S 2.740 (b) (2) . In addition, several NRC tribunals have included in.their interpretation of~the work product doctrine the provisions of Federal Rule 26 (b) (4) concerning discovery of facts or opinions known by experts who are retained in anticipation of or preparation for litigation and who are not expected to be called as witnesses at. trial.
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), LBP-85-38, 22 NRC 604, 609-10 (1985), Carolina Power & Light Co. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) , LBP-83-27A, 17 NRC 971, 976-79 (1983); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station,-Units 1 and
~~ -
2), LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490, 497 (1983).-1/
-1/ NRC regulations contain no provision directly analogous to Federal Rule 26 (b) (4) (B) . On this basis, however, only one tribunal has refused to apply the limits of Federal Rule 26 (b) (4) on nontestifying experts to NRC proceedings. General Electric Co. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center, General Electric Test Reactor), LBP-78-33, 8 NRC 462, 465-68 (1978). In General Electric Co., the (continued on next page)
Under ,the reasoning of Federal Rule 26 (b) (4) , Intervenors may discover the facts or opinions of a nontestifying expert only "upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (4) (B) .
Intervenors have made only the vaguest assertions in their Motion to Compel of exceptional circumstances, substantial need, _ impracticability, or inability to obtain similar information. They address neither the requirements set forth in S 2.740 (b) (2) nor the requirments for discovery of materials relating to nontestifying experts.
Applicant has provided a detailed privilege index identifying documents for which it is asserting a' claim of-privilege, identifying the type of privilege claimed, and providing a brief explanation to support that privilege.
Intervenors have made no at' tempt to address the privileges asserted on that index. Instead of making a showing of exceptional circumstances or substantial need for the
-1/ (continued from previous page) specifically contested discovery concerned the identity and qualifications of experts who were not expected to be called as witnesses. Id. at 462. It should be noted that Intervenors in the Braidwood proceeding previously espoused the applicability of Federal Rule 26 (b) (4) to NRC proceedings. See Response To Applicant Commonwealth Edison Company's First Set of Quality Assurance Interrogatories and Requests to Produce Documents Directed to Intervenors Bridget Little Rorem, et. al. and Motion for Protective Order at 5, dated August 16, 1985.
specific materials for which Applicant has claimed the work product privilege, Intervenors assert only that their need to discover " basic facts regarding the effectiveness of the Braidwood corrective action programs is obvious." Similarly, Intervenors fail to make a sufficient showing to satisfy the requirements that they are unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means or that it is impracticable for Intervenors to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. Inter-venors assert only.that "[elvaluative information cannot be obtained by any other practical process by Intervenors who lack both the resources to independently derive and access the raw information needed to obtain this vital information by other means." Motion to Compel at 5. This statement is insufficient. Cf. Statement of Policy On Conduct Of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452,.454 (1981).
Intervenors thus not only fail to satisfy the requirements necessary for discovery of materials covered by the work product privilege or relating to nontestifying experts, but also mischaracterize the nature of the material upon which Applicant has asserted a privilege. Applicant recognizes that facts given by a party to an expert cannot be protected by a claim of work product. See Public Service Company of New Hampshire- (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2) ,
LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490, 495 (.19 8 3 ) . However, all material facts relevant to the Amended 0.A. Contention have been or
are being produced in the form of written interrogatory responses and document production.
II. Intervenorn Have Not Made A Sufficient Showing to Overcome Applicant's Claim of Privilege :In Response To Interrogatory 13's Request Fo:: Information Concerning Torrey Pines Technology's Services For Isham, Lincoln & Beale In Specific Interrogatory 13, Intervenors have
. requested that Applicant describe in detail any and all work performed by Torrey Pines Technology with respect to the quality assurance contention or any corrective action program. Applicant has objected to this interrogatory in its entirety and has identified documents concerning Torrey Pines Technology's employment on its Index of Documents Withheld Under Claims of Privilege. See entries for Bates Numbers 27962-27966 and 36531-36535 (attached as Ex.1 and Ex. 2 respectively).
Torrey Pines Technology's work on Isham, Lincoln
& Beale's behalf clearly falls within the work product privilege. Torrey Pines Technology has been employed at Braidwood exclusively by the law firm of Isham, Lincoln &
Beale to provide expert assistance in its preparation for litigation of this case. See Affidavit of Michael I. Miller at 1 2 (" Miller Affidavit").~2/ Torrey Pines Technology has
-2/ The facts set forth in this Memorandum which do not appear in.the pleadings or other documents of record are established by the affidavit of Michael I. Miller, one of Applicant's attorneys, filed March 20,.1986 and attached to this response as Ex. 3.
~
not provided any services to the Applicant or to any of the contractors at Braidwood. No employee of Torrey Pines Technology has been identified as a witness in the answers 1
to Intervenors' general interrogatories filed January 24, 1986 and supplemented February 28, 1986. Furthermore, Applicant has no present intention to call any employees of this organization as witnesses. No information concerning the conclusions reached by Torrey Pines has been communi-cated by Isham, Lincoln & Beale attorneys to any Commonwealth Edison employees. Thus, under the recognized interpretation of the work product privilege Torrey Pines Technology's.
activities fall squarely within the scope of that privilege.
See Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 22 NRC at 619; Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 17 NRC at 495.
To overcome this privilege, Intervenors must show that exceptional circumstances render it impracticable for them to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 22 NRC at 616-17; cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (4) (B) . The standard is not whether discovery is the only means by which Intervenors can obtain Torrey Pines Technology's opinions. Intervenors' alleged lack of financial resources which would enable them to have an expert of their own is also an insufficient reason to overcome the requirement of exceptional circum-stances. Cf. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLJ-81-8, 13 NRC, 452, 454; In re International
System & Controls Corp., 693 F.2d 1235, 1241 (5th Dist.1982) .
Nor have Intervenors alleged that Torrey Pines is the only ,
expert with the capability to review'Braidwood quality assurance. Finally under NRC practice, Isham, Lincoln &
Beale must disclose any newly discovered material facts
- found by Torrey Pines, Technology, even if those facts are oth'erwise privileged. Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2) ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623(1973).
Intervenors cannot show exceptional circumstances make them unable to obtain facts or opinions on the subject of effec-tiveness of Applicant's corrective action programs where Applicant has made available all. material facts and where both Applicant and its attorneys have a continuing obligation to disclose newly-discovered material facts to the Intervenors.
Finally, it is worth noting that the work product' privilege'is not the only objection which Applicant has raised to Specific Interrogatory 13. Applicant has also objected that the information sought by this interrogatory goes beyond the permissible scope of discovery'in this proceeding. The interrogatory requested the Applicant to describe in detail "any and all work performed by Torrey Pines Technology with respect to quality assurance at Braidwood," the subjects of Intervenors' quality assurance contention, or any corrective action program including but not limited to the Safety-Related Mechanical Equipment corrective action program." .See Intervenors' Third ~ Set of
r,-
_9_
Q.A. Interrogatories at.ll. Under similar circumstances all parties have agreed that quality assurance'at Braidwood generally was not an appropriate scope for discovery. See Memorandum and Order (Ruling On Intervenors' Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicant and the NRC Staff) at 7, dated September 7, 1985. Intervenors have not addressed l this objection in their Motion to Compel. -3/
III. Drafts of Corrective Action Reports Are Not Relevant To Either Specific Interroga-tories 10 or 13 and Would Only Disclose To Intervenors The Mental Inpressions, Conclusions, Opinions or Legal Theories of Applicant's Counsel In its Motion to Compel, Intervenors assert the right to discover drafts of corrective action reports which were prepared with the participation of Isham, Lincoln &
Beale attorneys in anticipation of litigation. Motion to Compel at 4. Intervenors have moved to compel discovery on
. Specific Interrogatories 10 and 13, claiming that Applicant's responses to those interrogatories are iacomplete.
-3/ Intervenors have, however, omitted the phrase "with respect to quality assurance at Braidwood" from their statement of Specific Interrogatory 13 in their Motion to Compel. Motion to Compel at 2.
-4/_ Specific Interrogatory 13 requests only that Applicant to describe any and all work performed by Torrey Pines.
Consequently, drafts of corrective action reports are not relevant to Specific Interrogatory 13.
-lo-Specific Interrogatory 10 requests all studies, inquiries, reviews or evaluations of the effectiveness, results, and conclusions of Braidwood Construction Assess-ment Program (BCAP) and certain other corrective action programs. In its response to Specific Interrogatory 10, Applicant stated that it interpreted this interrogatory as requesting overviews of the effectiveness, results and conclusions of certain corrective action programs. Appli-cant's Objections And Third Partial Response To Intervenors' Third Set of Q.A. Interrogatories, dated February 13, 1986.
Intervenors have not posed any objections to this interpre-
-tation.
In any event, the bulk of the 36,530 pages of documents for which Applicant has asserted either the attorney-client or work product privilege are draft materials for corrective action reports which Isham, Lincoln & Beale attorneys have played ~a substantial role in preparing. As set forth in the attached affidavit, each of those reports were prepared, in part, in anticipation of litigating the issues which they address. Miller Affidavit at 11 3, 4.
Most of these materials relate to drafts of the BCAP report, L
l but certain drafts.of the Corroded Pipe Report, the report on Mechanical Equipment Installation (the "82-05" issues),
and the Material Traceability Verification (MTV) Report are also listed. Phe Corroded Pipe report is pertinent to Contention item ll.C; The Mechanical Equipment Installation
1 report is pertinent to items 1.A, 6.A, 10.A, 12.A and 13.A; and-the MTV report is relevant to Contention item 10.B.
Applicant cannot conceive of a circumstance in which these documents would either respond to or-reflect any response to Specific Interrogatory 13. Neither the Corroded Pipe Report nor the MTV Report are overviews of the respective-corrective action programs which they describe. Thus, these. documents
-are not relevant to Specific Interrogatory 10.
~
To the extent that the BCAP Report summarizes
, conclusions concerning other corrective action programs or the conclusions of BCAP Quality Assurance. (an overview of the BCAP Task Force), Intervenors have not overcome the work product privilege which Applicant has asserted.
Applicant has made available to Intervenors all the raw documentation from which BCAP's-conclusions were derived, including not only materials in files officially maintained by BCAP and BCAP Quality Assurance, but also p
working papers used by BCAP personnel and materials ~repared by Sargent & Lundy. In addition, in response to Specific Interrogatory 10, Applicant has identified specific documents f which summarize the findings of BCAP Quality-Assurance and I
the Review of Significant Corrective Action Programs (RSCAP).
These documents provide Intervenors with access to all'the
." basic facts" concerning BCAP and BCAP's review of corrective
-action programs. Thus, Intervenors cannot show that they have a substantial need for these materials in the preparation l-t l
1
of their case or that they are unable without undue hardship to obtain th'e-substantial equivalent.
Intervenors concede that they do not seek the disclosure of "the mental expressions [ sic], conclusions, opinions or legal theories of Applicant's counsel." Motion to Compel at 3. Yet the only purpose that would be served by disclosure of the drafts for which Applicant is claiming privilege would be to expose the opinions of Applicant's Counsel. Many of the drafts contain counsel's handwritten notes and comments which disclose their. theories. Moreover,.
a comparison of the changes in the drafts overtime will undoubtedly reveal counsel's mental impressions and theories.
IV. Intervenors Have Not Made A Sufficient Showing To Overcome Applicant's Claim Of Privilege Fo'r Other Materials Requested By Interrogatory 10 Specific' Interrogatory 10 requests information and documents concerning overviews of various corrective action programs. Intervenors have not designated specific documents although Applicant has provided a detailed index
-of privleged documents. -Aside from any materials discussed previously, the privilege index lists documents relating to an assessment of various remedial programs at the Braidwood site.which was performed for Isham, Lincoln & Beale. See entries for Bates Numbers 00249-00420 and 28841-35725 (attached as Ex. 5 and Ex. 61. In addition to the work product privilege, Applicant has asserted the attorney-
client privilege for some of these documents. In~ moving to compel a response ~to Specific Interrogatory 10, Intervenors
.h' ave not made a sufficient showing to overcome the work product privilege which Applicant has asserted and have not addressed the attorney-client privilege asserted for specific documents on the index.
At an early stage of proceeding before the scope of evidence necessary to respond to each contention was established,.Isham, Lincoln & Beale requested an evaluation of_various programs at the Braidwood site. See Miller Affidavit at t 5. The purpose of this review was to aid ,
Applicant's counsel in determining the scope and status of these programs and the reviews were used to formulate the approach Isham, Lincoln &.Beale used to prepare for the.
licensing hearing. As set forth in the attached affidavit, the results of this review were disclosed to only a small number of Commonwealth Edison Company employees for purposes
- of preparing for the licen' sing proceedings.
Compilations of materials and conclusions of this review are protected by the work product privilege. Disclosure of this information could reveal the opinions and strategies of Applicant's counsel. All factual matters set forth in these reports have been made available to Intervenors during the discovery process. Consequently, Intervenors have not demonstrated that they have a substantial need for the materials on which Applicant has claimed privilege or that
{
- , , - , , . . , - , - - ,c.. .,,,e- ,,, , , . - - - - , , - - - --- , -an---, - - - -.. - --
they are unable without undue hardship to obtain the equivalent.
, F V. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, Intervenors' Motion To Compel should beJdenied in its entirety and.Appli-cant's Motion for Entry of a Protective Order for Specific Interrogatories 10_and 13 of Intervenors' Third _ Set of Q.A.
Interrogatories should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, 4wd fMl ppb of the Attorneys For
- Applicant Commonwealth Edison Company J
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 558-7500 Dated: March 21, 1986 I.
f I
TYPE OF BATES PRIVILEGE DOCUMENT -
NUMBER AC or WP (SOURCE) DATE TO FROM DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION 27839-27892 WP Report 08/30/85 'T. Maimon M. Wallace Material Traceability verified at (M. Miller's L. De1 George Braidwood OrrV Report) (Draf t marked Files) E. Hemzy Privileged and Confidential -
D. Skoza prepared for use of IL&B attorneys G. Groth in anticipation of litigation)
R. Frasioner G. Jones M.- Miller K. Kostal J. Callo 27893-27927 AC, WP Memorandun 04/25/85 M. Miller R. Lauer R. Lauer Memorandum re BCAP meeting (Mike Miller's. L. DelCeorge with attached report re BCAP Files) Evaluation of RSCAP Element 27928-27954 WP Memorandum 06/13/85 M. Miller D. Stahl D. Stahl memo re Braidwood Correction Action (M. Miller's D. Stahl Programs with attachments Files) R. Ferguson E. Kezelis i R. Beckwith 27955-27957 WP Memorandum 06/20/85 D. Stahl R. Lauer R. Lauer memo re BCAP with attachments (M. Miller's M. Miller Files) 27958-27961 WP Memorandum 07/08/85 D. Stahl R. Lauer R. Lauer Memo re L. K. Comstock (M. Miller's M. Miller Document Review with attaciunents Files) 27962-27966 WP Memorandum 07/25/85 M. Miller L. D. Johnson Torrey Pines proposal and cover letter (M. Miller's re proposed consulting services for IL&B in Files) preparation-for litigation 27967-28011 WP Report Draft Daniels Report te Phillips Getschow (M. Miller's reinspection (with handwritten comments and Files) changes for M. 1. Miller's review)
(From Applicant's Fifth Par'tial to Intervenor's Second Set of Q.A. Inter-rogatories)
- - . . ~ . . . . . . .. . -- . - ,
ADDITION TO INDEX-OF DOCUMENTS WITHHELD UNDER CLAIM'0F PRIVILEGE' TYPE OF BATES PRIVILEGE DOCUMENT NUMBER AC or'WP (SOURCE) DATE TO FROM . DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION 36531-36535 WP Isham, 9/10/85- Johnson Miller Letter transmitting Technical Services.
Lincoln Contract for Torrey Pines Consulting
& Beale Services for Isham, Lincoln & Beale at Corres- Braidwood.
pondence Files Exhibit 2.
(From Letter to R. Guild dated March,21, 1986)
March.20, 1986 o.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
., In-the Matter of: )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-456 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 ) 50-457 and 2) )
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL I. MILLER Michael I. Miller, being first duly sworn, depc ses and says:
- 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Isham, Lincoln &
Beale, counsel to Commonwealth Edison Company in the above-captioned proceeding. I have overall responsibility for the preparation of and presentation of the Company's evidence in
-the operating license hearings. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein.
- 2. In August, 1985 I determined that I required an evaluation ot certain aspects of the reinspection of safety-related mechanical equipment by~an organization independent of
- Commonwealth Edison Company or its architect / engineer, Sargent &
Lundy. I retained Torrey Pines Technology Inc. for that purpose and specifically directed.the aspects of the reinspection program which I wished them to evaluate. Torrey Pines Technology Inc.
T employs personnel who are expert in evaluating various reinspection programs and other quality assurance issues. See e.g. Long Island Exhibit 3.
(Filed March 20, 1986)
Lighting Company' (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ,
LBP-83-5, 18 NRC 445, 617-18 (1983). The reinspection of safety-related mechanical equipment is involved in contentions 1.A, 6.A, 10.A, 12.A and 13.A. I h' ave relied on the conclusions expressed.to.me by Torrey Pines in developing the litigation position which the Company will take on these issues.
Torrey Pines has not been identified as an expert witness in
.this proceeding nor have I communicated its conclusions to 4
any employee of Commonwealth Edison Company or Sargent &
Lundy. No fact known to Torrey Pines regarding safety-related mechanical equipment reinspection program has been-withheld from discovery.
- 3. In the course of preparation for the evidentiary hearings in this matter a number of reports on various corrective action programs have been prepared and submitted by Commonwealth Edison Company. Several of these reports deal directly with issues which are in contention. These are the report on safety-related mechanical equipment (contention items 1. A, 6.A, 10.A,
~
-12.A and 13.A), the material traceability verification report (con-tention item 10.B) and the corroded pipe report (contention item ll.C). .These reports were issued on January 10, 1986, November 15, 1985 and January 1:, 1986, respectively. In each case the report satisfied both a commitment that the Company had made to the NRC Staff and was a part of the preparation for the evidentiary hearings on these issues. In each instance I and other attorneys from my firm participated in the drafting of the reports and commented 1
i
..r. _ . , _ _ _ , . . _ . , , , - _ , , <m, , , _ - , _ , _ , , , , , . . , . _ , . . . . _ . - _ - . . , -- , . . .
on various preliminary drafts of each document. In many instances handwritten notes by attorneys appear on the drafts for which a privilege from discovery is now claimed.
Changes in organization, approach and presentation of data in these reports occurred in part as a result of advice and participation of counsel. A review of the drafts would therefore disclose'the mental impressions and theories of the attorneys who participated in this process. In.no instance have factual matters which are set forth in the drafts been withheld from the discovery process.
4 .- I and other attorneys from my firm have partici-4 pated in the drafting of the BCAP report. At the time this preparation took place it was not certain whether the BCAP report would be used as part of the applicant's direct case in this proceeding. A decision has now been made that the underlying. conclusions and analyses contained in that report will not be a part of the applicant's direct case. It is, however, possible that a portion of the BCAP effort may be evidence in rebuttal. It is for that reason that applicant has turned over in disc'overy all of the underlying BCAP documents and has responded to interrogatories on BCAP. Since the preparation of the BCAP report involved the same partici-~
pation of attorneys as described in paragraph 3, the mental impressions and theories of attorneys would be disclosed by a review of the drafts of the BCAP report. In no instance have factual matters which are set forth in the drafts of the BCAP report been withheld from the discovery process.
T
- 5. At an early stage in this proceeding, after the contentions had been admitted, but well before the scope of the evidence necessary to respond to each contention had been established, I requested an assessment of various re-medial programs under way at the Braidwood site. I asked George Marcus, then Special Assistant to the' Company's Manager of Projects,.to assess these programs for me. This was done so that I might understand the scope and statur of these programs as well as any issues which Mr. Marcus identified regarding their implementation. The results of
[ Mr. Marcus' analysis'was communicated only to me and to Michael J. Wallace, Braidwood Project Manager and Thomas Maiman, Commonwealth Edison's Manager of Projects, the individual
+
with overall responsibility for the construction of the 3
Braidwood Station as well as other major construction projects.
Mr. Marcus' assessments were used by me to determine the direction of our firm's efforts in preparing for the evi-dentiary hearing. Mr. Wallace's and Mr. Maiman's participation i
in this process was necessary so that if additional resources were required with respect to any specific program at my
' request, they could direct that these resources be made available.
In no instance have factual matters which are set forth in
- --r-< - - - - . - - . - - -. - - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . -
BATES f PRIVILEG3 TYPE OF DOCUMENT f -
p NUMBER AC or WP (SOURCE) DATE TO FROM DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION 00249-00250 AC, WP Memo 07/18/85 Wallace Marcus Report for M. Miller concerning open items (Marcus) issued as part of Management Assessment 00251-00266 WP Activity 07/02/85 Prepared as part of Management Assessment l Evaluation for M. Miller (Marcus) 00267-00280 WP Activity 06/18/85 Prepared as part of Management Assessment
! Evaluation for M. Miller (Marcus) .
00281-00291 WP Report 06/06/85 Marcus, Report for M. Miller concerning Marcus (Marcus) Lauterbach, Management Assessment Todd I
00292 WP Memo 06/17/85 Description of Management Assessment Program (Marcus) for M. Miller
, 00293-00294 WP hemo Description of Management Assessment Program i (Marcus)
I i
l._.00295-00299 WP Report Prepared in the course of the Management
{. (Marcus) Assessment for M. Miller Y
+
3 lj 00300-00303 WP Memo 06/27/85 ~ Fitzpatrick Marcus Concerns report for M. Miller on Management p; (Marcus) Assessment Ii
- 00304-00307 WP Report Prepared during the course of the Management (Marcus) Assessment for M. Miller
( 00308 WP Handwritten 07/15/85 Prepared during the course of the Management '
g Notes Assessment for M. Miller k- I"*#C"*)
- Exhibikpplicant'sTenth (From 4
Partial Response To Intervonors, i l P i r u t- S o t- *n f O.A. Interrogatories)
BATES f.P2IVILEGE TYPE OF DOCUMENT O - Q NUMBER AC cr WP (SOURCE) DATE TO FROM DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION 00309 NOT RESPOWEIVE <
00310-00318 WP Activity 07/12/85 , Prepared'during'the course of Management Evaluation Assessment for M. Miller (Marcus) 00319 NOT RESPONSIVE 00320-00329 WP Activity 07/12/85 Prepared during the course of Management Evaluation Assessment for M. Miller (Marcus) 00330 NOT RESPONSIVE 00331-00336 WP Activity 07/16/85 Prepared during the course of Management Evaluation Assessment for M. Miller (Marcus) l 00337-00345 WP Activity 07/02/85 Prepared during the course of Management Evaluation Assessment for M. Miller (Marcus) 1 j00346-00366 WP Notes 06/18/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment for p (Marcus) M. Miller b
!yr00367-00368 WP Notes 07/19/85 Prepared during the course of the Management (Marcus) Assessment for M. Miller 00369-00377 WP Notes 05/24/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment Program
'g (Marcus) being done for M. Miller 1
( ,
r
4 BATES f P7*,ILECE TYP3 OF DOCUMENT O- -
,O l NUMBER AC or WP (SOURCE) DATE TO FROM DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION 1
. 00378-00386 WP Notes 05/22/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment Program i
(Marcus).
1 00387-00388 WP Notes 05/23/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment Program 00389-00391 WP Notes 05/23/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment Program 00392-00408 WP Notes 04/26/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment Program 00409 WP Notes 05/24/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment Program (Marcus) 00410 WP Notes 05/24/85 Notes concocning Management Assessment Program (Marcus)
- 00411-00413 WP Notes 05/24/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment Program (Marcus) s L.
- V 00414-00420 WP Notes 06/18/85 Notes concerning Management Assessment Program i (Marcus)
I k
?'
00421-00434 AC, WP Report Report on items in contention prepared for use f (Schroeder) by Ceco management and IL&B 00435-00451 AC, WP Index 06/27/85 Index of Contention Items prepared for use by (Schroeder) Ceco management and IL&B i
I-5
, . 3 .. g TYPE OF-
- 'I
.I BATES PRIVILEGE DOCUMENT NUMBER AC OR WP (SOURCE) DATE TO FROM DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION .(t 28841-28842 AC, WP . Memorandum 10/1/85 N.Kaushal M. Wallace M. Wallace memo re-topics to be '
(M. Wallace's L. DelGeorge addressed in developing BCAP report Files) P.Steptoe Activity June- Management Assessment Review - f 28843-35188 WP -
Evaluation July 1985 materials (G. Marcus) M. Miller.prepared for IL&B attorney )f 4 35189-35374 WP G. Marcus 8/29/85 Report. prepared at request of IL&B Files attorneys in preparation of hearings.,
q! '
35375-35427 WP G. Marcus Management Assessment Review Files Activity Evaluation prepars* for IL&Bl attorney M. Miller.
35428-35725 WP G. Marcus Files Materials used in preparation of Management Assessment Review with handwritten comments by G. Marcus.
35726-36319 AC, WP M. Wallace Supporting documentation compiled Files to prepare M. Wallace Affidavit submitted in. support of applicant's motion to deny admission of Intervenors' QA Contention.
36320-36328 WP Lisa Styles Files 01/06/86 L. Styles W. Marcis Survey of audits performed on LKC Manual Section and work Procedures prepared for attorney L. Styles.
Exhibit 5.
(From Applicant's Fifth: Partial Response to Intervenors' Second Set of Q.A. Interrogatories)
L' V