ML20204B942
| ML20204B942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/03/1978 |
| From: | Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Armstrong W MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & EMERSEN |
| References | |
| PROJECT-564M NUDOCS 7811150183 | |
| Download: ML20204B942 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ - -
b o
UfJtT[D ST AT ES j' y.,, [,,ge',
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON h
WA$llf fGTOfJ, D C. 20%5 o,, pf,[!!G* j' /.
- ++
November 3,1978 William H. Armstrong, Esq.
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen Three Embarcadero Center San Franc.sco, Cali fornia 94111 Re:
Paci fic Gas and Electric Company, Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit No.1, NRC Docket No. P-564A
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
Thank,you for your letter of October 26, 1978, in which you re-quested the Staff's views on the accuracy of the instructions to your legal assistants for producing " green-dotted" files and on the quality of the classi fication by paragraph numbers of the documents produced.
I am happy to provide you with some preliminary comments.
The Staff will discuss additional and more detailed comments at the meeting among all parties scheduled for November 14th and 15th in San Francisco.
As you should know, PG&E did not produce any " green-dotted" documents to the Staff until on or about September 22, 1978.
These first green-dotted documents were received by the Staff on September 25th while Staff counsel were on their way to San Francisco to attend the September 27-29 Prehearing Conference. At the close of business on September 29, 1973, I was still in San Francisco.
Consequently none of the green-dotted documents could have been reviewed as of then.
Upon return to my office on October 3,1978, I and other Staff personnel immediately devised and implemented procedures for reviewing green-dotted documents.
As of November 1,1978, the Sta-estimate _s that PG&E has produced a total of approximately 102,000 pages of green-dot't'ed documents to In te rveno rs. Of these, approximately 34,800 pages were selected by Staff and sent to us by PG&E.
We have completed our review of all of these documents.
It should be emphasized that Staff's review of these documents involves far more than the preliminary review defined in your Octobcr 25th interrogatories to the Intervenors.
In fact, the Staff's review includes examination, selection, analysis, indexing, and filing of the documents.
With respect to the classification by PG&E of the documents by paragraph number, the quality generally is in need of substantial improve-ment.
The Staff has not attempted to identify "every document" which we believe is improperly classified, mainly because the percentage of 781115 0/83
. improperly classified documents is so high. We can, however, provida representative examples of improperly classifled documents and further discuss these and others at our scheduled meeting.
Some examples:
PG&E paragraph no.
Correct PG&E Document flo.
classi fication C1assi fications AXF 616937 u
42,21,18,19,23, 32(15), or 32(16)
AXF 589044 14 12 or 60 AXF 604402 u
42 or 14 AXF 589114i u
35,33,34 AXF 569301 u
35,33,34 AXF 569302 u
35,33,34 AXF 605160 u
35,33,34 AXF 605196 u
35,33,34 AXF 605767 u
13 4
AXF 619292 5
42,34 AXF 619490 u
42,34 (essentially the same document as AXF 619292)
AXF 619599 u
5,34 e
AXF 568982 21 32(2),32('l8) or 43 AXF 592294 u
32(13)
With respect to the accuracy of the Stanislaus Screening Guide and the Training Manual, we offer the following:
A.
Stanislaus Screening Guide, Part I 1.
There are no instructions pertaining to the documents selected by the NRC Staff.
l 1
i,
2.
Page B, i tem III. A'.1 :
...The reader will mark all relevant but unresponsive documents, if any, with a penciled III-A..."
This instruction is inconsistent with the April 25, 1978, Stipulation Concerning Pro-duction of Documents (" Stipulation").
3.
Page 13, item III.B.4.a. :
Privilege forms (" pink sheets")
should be produced in their correct order to indicate that the corresponding pages missing from production are being withheld under a claim of privilege.
4.
Page 13, item IIIB4b:
The use of unresponsive (" yellow")
forms is inconsistent with the Stipulation.
S 'i Page 13, item IV C(11), (iii):
See A2 and A4 above, 6.
" Production Flow Chart":
It is not clear from the flow chart or the instructions which precede it that all selected do;uments are being numbered before_ a determination is made (initially by a legal assistant or ultimately by an attorney) that a document is privileged or "both irrelevant and sensitive."
B.
Stanislaus Screening Guide, Part IJ[
Paragraph No.
5.
" federal Regulatory Energy Commission" should read
" Federal Energy Regula tory Commission (FERC)".
10-14.
It is not clear that the recuests call for "all documents relating to the [ identified:
Nuclear Project [s]" including but not limited to PG&E's activities under the license, and excluding only documents which relate " solely" to the enumerated items.
15 Add "d.
Any other actual or potential NRC antitrust license conditions, specific or generic "
20.
Should not have been omitted.
23.
The request is not limited to the included items.
25.
The listed exclusions are wh'olly ir. consistent with the request and should be deleted or listed as inclusions.
27,28, should not have been omitted.
i 32(9).
Either one of the products or services (tying or tied) must be a bulk power service, but not necessarily the tying product as your instruction implies.
32(10)b.
"PGandE only" may be misleading.
32(19).
"/+
claim by another electric utility that PG&E has 3
trrangements or requirements":
"has" should be
" r..
oc had".
32(23).
" actual or proposed" should modi fy construction, timing, development, acquisition, and sizing.
33.
"Municipalization of PGandE's facilities" should be excluded only if reference is made to its inclusion in paragraph
)
- 35. (see below).
34.
The "Noerr-Pennington" footnote has a chilling effect on forthright production.
35.
It should be made clear that "municipalization" (see 33 above), appropriately defined, is included.
- 37. The statement that documents "must discuss both settlement and competitive position" is misleading.
- 39. Note 1) is inaccurate - there need not be any " explicit re fe re nce. "
41.
The request is not limited to the inclusion.
42.
The NRC Staff is a party to this proceeding!
Both the NRC and the NRC Staff should be included.
The Department of Justice should be included also.
43.
Developments by others (e.g., NCPA or DWR) should not be excluded.
52.
The note should also reference the Issues identified in the Board's July 14,1977 Order.
60.
PG&E's " practices" relate to its policies and therefore should not be excluded.
61.
Should read " Purchase, sale, pricing or tran; mission of power tQ or from actual or potential cogenerators or industrial generators."
I C.
Training Manual, Parts I and II Comments on the Training Manual will be provided at a later date.
I I hope these comments are helpful.
rle are looking forv ard to meeting with you to resolve these and other document production problems.
Very truly yours,
,;W L
/
Alac, R. Goldberg,
' Counsel for NRC Staff cc: All Parties on Service List
+
B
\\ l