ML20215J889
| ML20215J889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1987 |
| From: | Gad R ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3829 OL, NUDOCS 8706250141 | |
| Download: ML20215J889 (38) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. ,j )$$f 1 Dow cu th: sir; FILED: Jeae 19, 1947 '87 JIR 22 P2 :31 orn ( 00C.Mi % y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l, ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM ISSION \\ I before the A ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 95 In.the Matter of n TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY et al. 50-446-OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric l Station, Units 1 and 2) j APPLICANT TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION OF LICENSING BOARD ORDER OF MARCH 12,1987 ] R. K. Gad III William S. Eggeling John P. Dennis Deborah A. Steenland .J ROPES & GRAY 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Attorneys for Texas Utilities Electric Company 8706250141 870619 gDR ADOCK 05000445 9) eDR 1
/. 4 Table of Contents 1. STATEMENT OF TiiE CASE 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 III. REASONS FOR GRANTING Tile PETITION 5 A. The Board's Order is Contrary to Law and Invades Fundamental Legal Rights 5 1. The Order Violates Petitioner's Constitutional Rights. 5 2. The Order is Contrary to Settled Discovery Principles 8 3. The Order Improperly Interdicts the Responsibilities and Authority of the Staff 11 B. Unless Vacated. The Board's Order Threatens Irreparably To Disrupt the Expeditious and Orderly-Process of Guaranteeing the Safety of a Nuclear Power Plant.. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 18 Appendix A: Licensing Board Order of March 12, 1987 Licensing Board Order of November 28, 1986 i l l j
-c Table of Authorities FEDERAL CASES Page(s) Doe v. District of Columbia, 697 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir.1983) 7 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) 9 Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S.1 (1938) 6 Smith v. Ayer,101 U.S. 320 (1880) 6 Standard Oil Co. v. FTL, 475 F. Supp.1261 (N.D. Ind.1979) 6 NRC DECISIONS Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675,15 NRC 1105 (1982) 5 flouston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-608,12 NRC 168 (1980) 5 Houston Lighting and Power Company, (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-565, 10 NRC 521 (1979). 8 New England Power Company (NEP, Units 1 and 2); LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271 (1978) 12 Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generation Station), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1109 (1977) 4 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), j ALAB-864, NRC (May 1,1987) 5, 14 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503 (1977) 13 l il J
r ] 3..-., .J t-.. 1 3 -i Toledo ~ Edison ' Company ' (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power: Station), ALAB-300,- 2 NRC 752 -(1975) 4 Virginia Electric Power Company . (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-741,.18 NRC 371 (1983). 4 STATUTES- 'l
- 5. U.S.C. W 554(b) 5 RULES 10 C.F.R. 8 2.730 8
H .10 C.F.R. 9 2.740 (b)(3) -3. 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740(b)(2) 9 Fed. R..Civ. P. 26(b)(3) 3, 9, 11 OTHER AUTHORITIES 8 Wright & Miller 9 2024 p.196-197 9 Restatement (2d) Agency, e' 272, 381 6 i l lii !.i
l To the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board: 1 Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TU - Electric") petitions the Atomic Safety and.-Licensing Appeal Board pursuant' to 10 C.F.R - a 2.718(i) for directed certification of an Order of the Atomic . Safety and Licensing Board entered in this docket on Blarch 12, 1987. I. STATEMENT OF Tile CASE Four utilities (TU Electric, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, - Texas Municipal Power Agency and Tex-La Electric Cooperative) jointly own a project to design and build a two-unit nuclear power plant (Comanche Peak' Steam Electric Station - "CPSES") pursuant to a contract (" Joint Ownership Agreement") filed with and. reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). The Joint Ownership Agreement confers sole authority to design, construct, operate, and obtain licenses for CPSES Units 1 and 2 upon TU Electric, which owns the largest share of the CPSES Project (87 5/6%). Joint Ownership Agreement, 6 3.04 at 17, 5.01. According-ly, TU Electric has been the sole entity upon which the other Joint Owners, the parties to the CPSES licensing proceedings, and all levels of the NRC have relied for the proper implementation of all relevant NRC rules and regulations. The Commission, and thereby the public, has thus relied and will continue to rely in the future upon TU Electric's performance of its obligations in order to provide the requisite assurance that CPSES's construction and
t.( Y s s operation have. been and will be consistent. with' the' protection of - public health and:~ safety. _ The application for a. license to operate CPSES Unit l' is . currently before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing 1 Board")' convened. to hear issues related to a. single. remaining admitted contention - viz., that'.there was a : breakdown of the
- CPSES QA/QC program sufficient ~ to cast doubt on the ability of-
.CPSES to be ' operated in conformity with NRC regulations. The? Intervenor advancing this contention before the LLicensing Board (CASE) sought discovery of.all documents.' generated in connection with a. monitoring program" reportedly undertaken by one of the minority. owners, Tex-La,' with ' regard, to protecting its investment in the Project.' See CASE Request for Production of L)ocuments, June 27,.1986. Tex-La, responding on its own behalf (Response of Applicant Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc. to "Sup. plemental CASE Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order re: 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel"), asserted that the responsive' documents it had in its possession were immune.from discovery due to a " work product" privilege recognized in federal and state courts and rehearsed in the NRC rules of practice.2 See 2For the most part, these documents (hereinafter referred to as 'the " Tex-La documents") appear to be comprised of reports prepared for Tex-La's use by Tex-La consultants (Southern En-gineering' and GDS Corp.) who attended Joint. Owners' meetings, ' interviewed CPSES project managers, and toured the CPSES facility. See Order, Appendix A. 2Before the Licensing Board, TU Electric remained neutral on the issue of whether the Tex-La documents should be found to be ultimately protected by the work product privilege -- and therefore disclosed to no party -- or should be found to be discoverable by 2
6 Fed. H. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); 10 C.F.R. H 2.740(b)(2). Following an exchange of memoranda and a period.of private negotiations between counsel'for Tex-La and counsel for CASE, the Licensing Board entered -an Order that required the Tex-La docu-E ments to be made available to CASE and to the NRC Staff, but expressly. prohibited their disclosure to TU Electric. In doing so, the Licensing Board rejected TU Electric's argument that, if the documents were to be disclosed at all, they must also be available to TU Electric. Applicants' Response to CASE (10/20/86) Motion to ~ compel (Tex-La Documents) i11/4/86).- Inasmuch as any compelled production of the Tex-La docu-ments necessarily is based, at a minimum, upon a conclusion that these documents may be relevant to the admitted contention regarding the adequacy of the CPSES QA/QC program created and i administered by TU Electric, the Order prohibiting TU Electric's E access to.these documents defies common sense, is contrary to established precedent, improperly-divides and separates the Joint ~ Owners, exceeds the Licensing Board's authority, and deprives TU Electric of its rights to procedural' due process. Moreover, inasmuch as TU Electric must ultimately address whatever deficien-cies, if any, may be revealed in or suggested by the Tex-La documents regarding the CPSES QA/QC program, the Licensing Board's Order creates a wasteful and avoidable procedure which must. necessarily impede, rather than enhance, the Applicants' all parties. See Applicants' Response to CASE (10/20/86) Motion to Compel (Tex-La Documents) (11-4-86). That issue is not presented by this Petition. 3
abilities to' fulfill their licensing commitments. Directed certifica-tion is therefore required in order to: (a) prevent the improper bhlkanization_ of the Joint Owner Applicants throughout the ! remainder of the licensing. proceedings,-(b) to restore discovery to-its proper role, and (c) and to insure the proceedings before the ASLB can be conducted efficiently, expeditiously, and consistently with the p'ublic interest of achieving a high degree of confidence in: i the proper construction of CPSES. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW An Appeal Board will grant directed certification if the Licensing Board's ruling: either (1) threaten (s) the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by'later appeal or (2) ~ affect (s) the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner. Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble 11111 Nuclear Generation Station), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1109,1192 (1977). The standard is met i where an Appeal Board is presented with " legal or policy questions l that... are 'significant' and required prompt appellate resolution." j i Virginia Electric Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC 371, 375 (1983) (citing the Commis-sion's Statement of Policy, CLI-81-9,13 NRC 452, 456 (1981)). I Indeed, in ALAB-741, the Appeal Board undertook to decide ques-tions having " generic implications" and " recurring importance."8 In 3See also Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752, 769 (1975) (appropriate to exercise certification power "to settle a legal point of general applicability"). 4
addition, it is appropriate for an Appeal Board to grant directed certification where an order of the licensing board was "so plainly erroneous that our intercession is required in order to avoid.the possible working of a manifest injustice '....." Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-608,12 'NRC 168,171 (1980).4 Most recently,. the Appeal Board has held that directed -certification is the appropriate ruling where the licensing board's decisions' threaten to alter the " fundamental fairness" integral to the procedurni due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-864, NRC _ (May 1,1987). - III. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION A. The Board's Order is Contrary to Law and Invades-Fundamental Legal Rights. 1. The Order Violates Petitioner's Constitutional Rights By prohibiting access to allegedly relevant discovery integral to the licensing proceeding, the Order denies TU Electric its fundamental rights, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 9 554(b), to know what it must establish in order to succeed-in this administrative proceed-ing. Included in the due process right to notice and a fair oppor-j tunity to be heard is the " reasonable opportunity to know the )
- See also Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), AL'AB-675,15 NRC 1105,1113 (1982)
(interlocutory appellate review is appropriate where licensing board error " fundamentally alters the very shape of the ongoing adjudica-tion.") 5
claims of the opposing party and to meet them." Norgan v. United States, 304 U.S.1,18 (1938). It extends to appropriate discovery, because this is the manner provided by the rules for a party to learn the claims of its adversary. Standard Oil Co. v. FTC, 475 F. Supp.1261,1275 (N.D. Ind.1979) ("There can further be no doubt, and the parties do agree, that this due process requires that plaintiffs, in the... administrative proceeding, are entitled to appropriate discovery in time to reasonably prepare themselves, and their defenses, before facing the charges in the administrative ' t rial'" ). The Licensing Board's decision disregards these guaran-tees. Indeed, while the Order allows CASE to prepare and advance its claims against the applicants by examining, and then necessarily relying on, the Tex-La documents, the Project Manager and lead applicant is to be intentionally and purposefully kept in the dark. If the Board's Order is permitted to stand, TU Electric will thus be i denied the fundamental right of a party 5 to discover the challenges i i sThe Order's provision allowing access to the Tex-La docu-ments to certain of TU Electric's counsel but prohibiting counsel from any further disclosure of the information to their client, ) Order at par. 2, cannot satisfy TU Electric's rights. Such a l restriction is simply unworkable, and its attempted implementation would contravene the essential premises of the system of represen-tative advocacy employed before the NRC (as well as in Anglo-American jurisprudence in general). The right to review discovery materials relative to the issues in this operating license proceeding inheres in the parties to that proceeding. Insofar as disclosure of information to a party's designated representative may normally be adequate to satisfy that party's right to that information (see, e.g., Smith v. Ayer,101 U.S. 320, 326 (1880)), it is because the repre-sentative, in turn, owes the party the duty of full disclosure. Restatement (2d1 A gency, @ 272, 381. Interference with that duty might properly be essayed in only the most compelling of cir-cumstances, and only where there has been shown to be complete assurance that the essential purposes of the representation will not be adversely affected. See United States v. Lever Brothers 6 \\ I i
~~w. '3 " l -, u h n a Company,193 F. Supp 254, 258 (S.D.N.Y.1961) cert. denied, 371 'U.S. 932 (1962):
- y "Indeed to deprive the [ defendant'sl knowledgeable personnel of the absolute right to examine and discuss these. documents at the trial would be tantamount to-I depriving [the defendant] of the right to defend.
l Therefore, if pre-trial disclosure is not. allowed,- substan-i tial delays at.the trial would result while.this data is being analyzed and evaluated. And, all agree ~ that one of the prime purposes of the federal discovery procedure is. to facilitate adequate pre-trial preparation, and. thereby I to avoid subsequent delay at the trial." -{ (citation omitted). Accord Doe v. District of Columbia,' 697 F.2d 1 1115,1118-1120 (D.C. Cir.1983): j i "[E]very litigant has a powerful interest in being able to j retain and consult freely with an attorney, insofar as the fair administration of justice requires that all parties to 3 a controversy. be fully and equally informed of their 1 entitlements. The public has a similarly-important j interest in preserving the ability of each disputant to a confer with his lawyer. This public interest is. reinforced by the.value we place on the right of every litigant to participate in the process whereby justice is done -- to understand and become involved in the proceeding, not Ao be compelled passively to await its outcome." i ) It is for this reason that decisions involving trade secrets or s related intellectual property rights are inapposite. While it may occasionally be appropriate to limit discovery materials to counsel l and the experts helping them in such extreme cases, the justifica-tion is that despite the clients' interests can be adequately protected due to: (1) the fact that the issues involved are unrelated to the historical conduct of the client / party; and (2) the presumed ability of counsel and the experts to decipher and utilize the restricted information. No such situation exists in the instant proceeding. Instead, the documents are supposed to include ] information which can only be analyzed and reacted to upon { consultation with those whom it is supposed to be about -- the applicants in general and TU Electric in particular. If one accepts the argument that the Tex-La documents contain information material and relevant to questions regarding the performance of TU Electric in the design, construction and evaluation of CpSES, it follows that such information must be disclosed to TU Electric so that it may consider the implications of such information and its responses thereto. 7 1
4 .a against it, even while the tribunal utilizes the same supposed authorities to compel disclosure of such information to its chal-lenger. This result is not compatible with the fundamental fairness _ guarantees of Due Process.6 2. The Order is contrary to settled Discovery Prin-cipl_es One need not confront the constitutional dimensions to the problem created by the Order, however, for the simple fact is that there is no provision in the Rules of Practice which would permit discovery by some parties and not others of information such as CASE claims may exist in the Tex-La documents. The working assumption of the Rules is that all parties have the right to review all discoverable information which is relevant and material to the issues comprised within the admitted contentions.1 It is thus
- The manner in which the Licensing Board adopted the draft protective order signed by CASE and Tex-La further violated TU Electric's due process rights because it failed to allow TU Electric the opportunity to respond. On March 9,1987, counsel for CASE sent the Licensing Board a letter enclosing a draft protective order and requesting the Board's to enter it.
CASE's letter, in effect, was a motion to the. Licensing Board. TU Electric thus legitimately expected that it would be allowed ten days in order to respond, as is provided by the Rules of Practice. See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.730(c), (d). Instead, the Licensing Board immediately adopted the CASE / Tex-La draft as its own, signing the draft protective order on March 12, 1981. In Houston Lighting and Power Company, (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-565,10 NRC 521, 524 n.12 (1979), the Appeal Board stated that 10 C.F.R. W 2.730(d) "gives the movant's opponent full opportunity before any ruling is made to file a written response to the motion ' stating the argu-ments and authorities relied on' in addition to other material." The Appeal Board also noted that "of course, the cardinal rule so far as fairness is concerned, is that each side must be heard." 1d. at 521 (citations omitted). 7 " Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may 8
p. H-4 - presumptively' impermissible to enforce a work. product. privilege ,against only one of the parties. This presumption 'is derived in part' from the rule that the .i.
- existence of the-work product privilege -is dependent not upon the identity of.the person seeking disclosure, but upon the. purpose for which.the -document was created,$ The privilege is thus either applicable or' it. is not. And if it does apply, discovery may be
. permwd only upon an adequate showing of extraordinary need and the inability. to obtain substantially equivalent information by other means. As can be seen from the Order itself, these basic prin-ciples were completely disregarded.in this case. The Licensing Board began by accepting the Tex-La contention that the Tex-La documents were work' product. Memorandum and Order (November.28,1986) at 2 (reproduced in Appendix A hereto). The Board nevertheless-ordered those documents produced without requiring.any showing -- beyond an assertion of possible relevance -- sufficient 'to overcome the privilege against disclosure which obtains upon such. classification as work product. This error, compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession." Rickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)
- The sole test to determine whether material is protected by the work product privilege is whether the material is a document or tangible thing, prepared in anticipation of litigation, by a party or the party's representative.
See Fed. R. Civ. p. 26(b)(3); 8 ' Wright & Miller U 2024 at 196-97. 9
evidencing a patent disregard of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740(b)(2),' was then exacerbated by the portion of the Board's Order simultaneously prohibiting TU Electric from access to the same documents notwithstanding their apparently presumedio relevance to the contention in this proceeding. Such extraordinary discrimination has no basis in the factu presented to the Lice sing Board, nor in the principles and authorities which more generally inform the Commission's jurispru-dence. To the contrar,', whatever it was that may have persuaded the Licensing Board thet the facts warranted overcoming the work product privilege to pe:mit disclosure to CASE, there appears to have been no consideration given to whether the same facts applied equally to TU Electric. Indeed, it is logically impossible that CASE could make a sufficient showing of need to review the Tex-La documents without TU I:lectric -- the party solely responsible for 3 the design, constructiori and operation of CPSES, the conduct of this proceeding and the formulation of responses to any questions or charges advanced b; CASE or the Staff -- have an ultimately "A party may obtain discovery of [ work 8 product materials) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of this case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means." 10Cf.10 CFR 11 2.740(a): (" Parties may [only] obtain discovery regarding any matter... which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding...." ). Thus, the effect of the Order record must be that the documents have been at least preliminarily determined to be relevant. 10
e .e l*,. . preeminent need to' examine those same documents.18 it is ltherefore Ldifficult to perceive how the bias created by the Licens-ing Board's Order can be other than arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. 'It is plain that the result of the Order is a recipe for chaos. f 3. The Order Improperly Interdicts the Responsibilities and Authority of the Staff i i As discussed above, the order substantially exceeds the Licensing Board's authority in numerous respects. Perhaps most 4 egregious, however, is that it purports to prohibit the NRC Staff from disclosing the contents of the Tex-La documents _to TU Electric or anyone else,88 Order at 2-3, without apparent regard ' to 22The' Licensing Board's memorandum fails completely to address the question of why. the' work product privilege could prevent disclosure of the Tex-La documents to TU Electric but not to CASE. The only conceivable basis for'such a ruling is that CASE had somehow shown-an extraordinary need to have the discovery, thereby overcoming the privilege.- Assuming the Board so concluded, it should then have assessed whether any less . extraordinary need applied equally in TU Electric's case, a con-sideration which, had the Board entertained it (or afforded TU Electric an opportunity to address it) can only be resolved one i way: (1) If the documents in question represent a unique access j to some evidentiary material, then the access must be equally unique and necessary to TU Electric is to CASE; and (2) the very i fact that these particular documents have been made available to CASE as potential evidence in the case it is waging against TU q Electric renders them doubly unique and necessary to TU Electric once access to them has been given to CASE. j 22In addition, the Order exceeded the Board's authority by impermissibly preventing TU' Electric from securing production of its own statements contained in the Tex-La documents. The l documents specified in the Order, Appendix A, include notes made { by Southern Engineering of meetings with Mr. Counsil, Mr. Beck, J Mr. Tyler and other TU Electric personnel. Order, Appendix A, 2-J 3, 5-19. TU Electric has an absolute right to obtain these statements from CASE. Fed. R. Civ. p. 26(b)(3) ("A party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the 11 l 1
'the possible information covered' by' those documents or its relationship to the Staff's duties and responsibilities. Such'a command is contrary to existing auth'orities and should be in-tolerable. as matter of policy to this' Agency. In addition to its' responsibilities as a party in a contested' proceeding, the' NRC Staff is of course responsible for resolving all uncontested safety and environmental matters, and functions independently of the Licensing Board. A Licensing Board order j i i which directs the Staff in its independent responsibilities'is thus .l patently improper. New England Power Company (NEP, Units 1 and 2); LDP-78-9, 7 NRC 271, 279-280 (1978) ("We hold that the Board does not have the' power to direct the staff in the performance of its independent responsibilities, nor would it be appropriate to exercise-such supervisory functions if we had the power to do so.")l Within the context of the contested issues in a licensing proceed-ing, moreover, the Staff surely retains a significant role in assuring that Applicants (indeed presumably all parties thereto) adhere to their commitments and the Commission's regulations. The instant Order, at a minimum, creates the probability that one or both of these duties will be frustrated. One may readily appreciate the magnitude of this threat upon consideration of the only possible outcomes of an inspection of the Tex-La documents by the Staff. The documents must fall into one of three categor-ies: (1) They may be entirely irrelevant to any potential issues in the licensing proceeding or in the Staff's independent administra-t - action or its subject matter previously made by that party.") 12
tive responsibilities' -- upon which hypothesis the Board's Order requiring their' production'in derogation.of'a claim of work' product production' must be held to be clearly erroneous; - (2) They may ; com' prise information which the Staff concludes bears upon the adequacy of CPSES' adherence to its-commitments and. to Commis-sion regulations -- in which-instance the. Staff surely must be free ' promptly to disclose their contents to the pro, lect Manager TU Electric in order, to explore its responsiveness' to correcting any identified deficiencies;. or (3) They may comprise information relevant to' the QA/QC breakdown issue being contemplated in the licensing proceeding -- in which instance the Staff surely has the duty (both in'its role as a party and in its role as representative' of the Commission) promptly to explore and disclose the implica-tions of such information on the licensing equation. It' may thus be seen that not only does the Order interfere in a private dispute between TU Electric and Tex-La, it puts relevant .j information into the hands of the NRC Staff and then purports to interdict the Staff's duty to disclose the same information to the . only party responsible for plant construction: TU Electric. The terms of the Order thus appear directly to prohibit the Staff from discharging duties imposed by law. See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 524 (1977) (process of staff evaluation of environment report " takes place through exchange with the applicant.") Such an order may not be permitted to stand if the function of protection of the public. health and safety contemplated for the NRC Staff is to be i I 13 l
N('. safeguarded. s B. Unless Vacated, The Board's Order Threatens irreparably To Disrupt the Expeditious and Orderly Process;of Guaranteeing the Safety of a Nuclear Power Plant. It must be perceived that the continued existence of the Board's Orders which are the subject of this petition virtually guarantee that Petitioner's due process rights will be irreparably j harmed. ' In' the first instance, in the' current calculus ~ TU Electric is prohibited from seeing the evidence being amassed against it -- in direct contravention of its promised ' right to prepare its defenses to the admitted contentions. Such a violation, by definition, ca'n never be remedied since the right guaranteed is that of being l i permitted to perceive the nature of charges in advance of their j litigation. Indeed, every day in which evidence, ordered to be produced because of its supposed relevance to contentions levelled against TU Electric, is still being denied to TU' Electric must constitute another violation of Petitioner's rights to 'due process. The unavoidable consequences of the Order's extraordinary distor-tion of normally expected discovery rights thus make a mockery of the fundamental fairness concepts embodied both in the Constitu-tion and the Commission's Policies and Rules of Practice. See l Public Service Company of New 11ampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-864, NRC _, __ n.10 (Slip Op. at 5 - ] n.10, May 1,1987). The Board's Order must invariably trample other rights if ) allowed to remain undisturbed. For example, it is difficult to J imagine how the Order can be effectively enforced at a hearing 14
when CASE or some'other party seeks to offer. evidence derived-from the Order to Compel (but theretofore denied to TU Electric). (. One may presume' that before any such evidence is admittedt3 at (- s l least. TU Electric will be permitted to see it. ' But if the evidence- } l 'is. probative, and by' definition a surprise, it would seem to have to . ]j follow.that TU Electric must be entitled to an ' opportunity to _i l repair.to consider the impact of the evidence and to formulate its . responses thereto.14 Recognition of this right, however, will : invariably invade another -- that of the Applicants' (and the. l public) interest in the speedy, efficient and expeditious completion of the operating license hearings.25 It cannot be an adequate l substitute for the violation.of one right to require the foregoing of l 1 another.- ) 83 Note that it is impossible to' imagine how TU Electric can adequately protect its rights to object to the admission 'of such 1 evidence if it has not yet been permitted to see it, yet that is j exactly 'what the Order contemplates. ] 1* Millers' Nat. Ins. Co. v. Wichita Flour Mills-Co., 257 F.2d . to dispel possibility of prejudice when ) 93,' 98 -(10th Cir.1958) ( surprise evidence was introduced, "[m]uch time was then consumed It in showing the pictures to [ opposing] counsel and their experts. Full opportunity was afforded for explanation and objection"). See . Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Evid. 403 (As regards. surprise evidence, granting a continuance is a better remedy than ) J exclusion); 1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence, par. 403[01] at 403-20, 21 and n. 29. i 25See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1) (standard for late intervention); I Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing plant), CL1-l 75-4,1 NRC' 273, 275 (1975) ("Obviously, an important policy consideration underlying [10 C.F.R. 9. 2.714(a)(1)] is the public interest in the timely and orderly conduct of our proceedings. As j the Commission has recognized, ' fairness to all parties... and the i obligation of administrative agencies to conduct their functions with efficiency and economy, require that Commission adjudications be conducted without unnecessary delays.'") (quoting 10 C.F.R. part 2, Appendix A). 15 o
4 Finally, and probably most importantly,15 is the precedential effect of the instant Board Order. It is simply not known -- to petitioner at least -- what information may be in the particular Tex-La documents which are the subject of the current Order. I What is apparent, however, is that the Joint Owners have a dispute, inter sese and dehors the current NRC dockets, which l I causes them to claim the existence of privileges against the disclosure of certain information." These claims are likely to recur. There is certainly no basis for concluding that they will diminish. If, moreover, the pre-trial activity amongst the Joint 15We are not unmindful that this petition comes some time after the entry of the Order the review and reversal of which it advocates. Normally, of course, this interval might suggest that a petitioner's claims to the current necessity of interlocutory review should be viewed with added skepticism. Such an interpretation is not warranted in this instance. Upon the entry of the Board's unprecedented Order, TU Electric attempted to determine whether it could somehow be accepted as tolerable if nonetheless erroneous. The hopeful evaluation of that possibility took some time. We have now unavoidably concluded that such optimism is not warranted. Rather, in only the last few weeks the net of discovery has, as predicted in the text, gotten ever wider. At the same time, other Minority Owners, as well as Tex-La again, have suggested that they will not permit the project Manager (TU Electric) to discharge its responsibilities to afford full discovery in the contested proceeding I unless it agrees in advance to the entry of further protective i orders like the one adopted by the Board in this instance. For the i reasons discussed in the body of the petition, such an accommoda-tion is impossible if TU Electric's, and the publics', rights are to be observed. l It is thus now apparent to us that review of the Board's Order must be sought at this juncture. We urge this Appeal Board to examine the validity of that conclusion using the same developments. l "It is not within the scope of this petition to test the validity of these claims of privilege. It is, however, taportant to recall that the Licensing Board has accepted their application to the discovery requested in the operating licensing proceeding. 16
Owners in their state court litigation encompasses information relevant to the licensing proceeding,18 the claim that such informa-tion must be disclosed within the NRC dockets must also increase, if the Project Manager is to be denied access to such information while it is simultaneously afforded to its adversaries, the above-described violations of its rights to fairness and due process will be repeated again and again. Such an untenable situation simply cannot be permitted to replicate itself. It is incumbent upon this Appeal Board to avoid such predictable derogation of guaranteed fundamental rights. l
- Which also appears to be the working hypothesis of Intervenors and the Licensing Board's Order.
17 l
1 y IV.. CONCLUSION-For the foregoing reasons ~ the petition should be. granted-and ~ the Order.should-be vacated with instructions that the. Licensing ' Board. reexamine the question.of work product protection for ' the- ~ Tex-La documents. Th'e production of those documents, as well' as that of. any'similar documents or,information,< should be required i only if any, work product protections legitimately attached to them ~ are shown to be counterbalanced by an appropriate showing 'of " substantial need" and " undue hardship" and can be appropriately L protected.by.their being made available. to the Project Manager. i Their production'should.then be compelled only 'upon provision that i they are equally available to other interested parties. TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY s.s ,) Y/ L. R. E. Gad ' III /' William S. Eggeling John P. Dennis Deborah S. Steenland ROPES &. GRAY 225' Franklin Street Boston,' MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Attorneys for l Texas Utilities Electric Company ^ l ) 18
.w. BEFORE.THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board-In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL Texas Utilities Electric ) 50-446-OL Company, et a l.' ) ) (Comanche Peak Steam' Electric ) Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ~. - PROTECTIVE ORDER In the Memorandum and Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board, dated November 28, 1986, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc (" Tex-La") was directed to make available to Citizens Association for. Sound Eneroy (" CASE") the documents listed in Appendix A to Applicants' Further Supplemental Response to " CASE Response to Applicants' Motion for Protective Order ce 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel,"1/ except for the documents listed in said Appendix A as Nos. 1, 2, 4, 22 or 23, which CASE did not request. The l Memorandum and Order further directed that such document oroduction be subject to a protective agreement to be entered into between Tex-La and CASE in order to orotect the information from Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TUEC") and avoid prejudicing the state court litioation currently in progress between TUEC and the other three Applicants. 4 1/ A copy of said Appendix A is attached hereto. j i l 1
1 2-Tex-La and CASE have indicated below their agreement to the orotective terms set forth herein. Accordingly, it'is-hereby ORDERED, that'the followinq orocedures shall govern the production to CASE by Tex-La. of the above-described documents which CASE requested (hereinafter the " Protected Documents"): (1) .The Protected Documents shall be made available by Tex-La for inspection and copying by CASE. Such Protected Documents and their content shall be disclosed by the person receivino the documents for CASE (who shall be one of' the. ] individuals named below) only to the following' employees, representatives or clients of CASE: Anthony Z. Roisman Juanita Ellis Billie Garde Mark Walsh Jack Doyle Barbara Boltz David H. Boltz At the request of counsel for the NRC Staf f, the Protected Documents shall be made available by Tex-La for inspection and copying also by the NRC Staf f.2/ Such Protected Documents and their content shall be disclosed by the person receiving 2/ Counsel for Tex-La believes that the Board's November 28, 1986 Memorandum and Order requires the disclosure of the Protected Documents also to the NRC Staf f, should Staf f request such disclosure. i
. the documents for the NRC Staff only to other oersons who are cart of the NRC Staff. (2). Upon request, the Protected Documents shall be made available by Tex-La for insoection and cooving by individuals from the law firms of Ropes & Gray, Boston, Massachusetts, Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds,. Washington, D.C., Worsham, Forsythe, Samoels & Wooldridge, Dallas, Texas ("Worsham, Forsythe"), and Wright & Ta li sm A gg P.C., Washington, D.C., all of whom appear as attorneysJfor j Applicants herein): orovided, that the Protected Documents need not be made available to Worsham, Forsythe until after May 1, 1987 (the date by which, under a Feb ruary 9, 19B7 court order disqualifying Worsham', Forsythe from representing TUEC in the aforementioned state court litigation, any assistance Worsham, Forsythe provides to new counsel must be comoleted crovided fu rthe r, that if on May 1, 1987, there is pendinc any proceeding to reverse, set aside, or otherwise modify such Feb ruary 9, 1987 order, the Protected Documents need not be made available to Worsham, Forsythe until such proceeding, and any further appeals f rom such proceeding, are finally resolved in a manner which upholds the disqualification of Worsham, Forsythe. No disclosure of the Protected Documents or their i content shall be made by any of the aforementioned law firms to TUEC (including any of its af filiated companies) or to any law ) firm which represents TUEC in litigation against Tex-La.
4 4.- (3) Any person to whom Protected Documents or their - content are disclosed-shall not disclose the same.to any other oerson except' as expressly permitted by this' Order or as may-otherwise be ordered by the Board uoon motion filed with the Board. Any person.to whom Protected Documents or their content ' are disclosed shall treat the same as confidential, shall keep Protected Documents or documents disclosing their content concealed'when not in.immediate use, and shall take all .reasonab le precautions to prevent disclosure to' persons not entitled-thereto. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision contained 7 1 herein, this Protective Order shall cease being applicable to j L - any of the Protected Documents which, by reason other 'than a b reach ':of the terms of this Order, is disclosed to TUEC. (5) ~ Tex-La shall have the riaht to waive any - restrictive recuirement contained in this Order. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 8' fe s / Peter B.'Bloch, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I Dated at Bethesda, MD this 12th day of March,.1987 l l l
').; 4 5-AGREED TO: K /,. William 'H. "Bu rchette Heron, Burchette, Rucker & Rothwell 1025 Thomas Jefferson St., N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20007 Attorney.for Tex-La Electric-Cooperative of Texas, Inc. [ Anthony 6 . ftcrispan Trial La.,4rs f.or Public Justice 2000 P treet, N.W.,-Suite 611 Washington,.D.C. 20036 Attorney for Citizens-Association for Sound Energy
APPENDIX A SN" A38FCWSE CF AJPLICANT TEX-LA RL2CTRIC CCC733ATIVE CF T3XA8, INC. TO CAJ2 ' S JUX2 27, 13 3 4 R3gty:;3; FOR PRCOOCTION 07 CCCUMENTS CAJ2 ' 8 June 2 7, 19 8 6, Request for Production of cocuments included the following request 4tracted to the minority owners of the project, including Tex-La s All' documents in the possession of any 1. of the ownera of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station that wers generated in the course ei the ' monitoring prograa ... undertaken by Tex =La in connection with Comanche Peak,* including but not limited to all assessments, independent assessments, evaluations, interim reports, notas of meeting, and 3v data generated. Joe " Permits /Licanses The Minority owners' { Responsibilities, The Function of Legal Counsel " presented by William W. Eurchette, General Counsel, tex =La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., before the NRacA Committee on Joint Cwnership meeting, May t 20-21, 1988, p. 5, hereinafter 'Surchette speech" (copy attached). Please include all documents (1) between the persons conducting the assessment, moni toring, and evaluation (2) between the persons esquesting such - assessment, monitoring, and evaluation and other persons within Tex-Las and (3) between any person employed by, representing, or providing contracting s or consulting services to Texas ] Utilities Electric company or any of its parents, suasidiaries, or predecessors in interest and any person Tex =La with respect to such at assessment, monitoring, or evaluation.
1 l l d 2- ) a l In itJ initial response, Tax-La agreed to provida thi r >qusstad dccussats to ths sxtant th a t.317 did not includa any ) ce=srunications hattmasa Tax =t,a 2nd itJ atternsys, any-Atterany { wort produos, or sn? docu:monts er seitings pr2 pared W M:-La's consultants in anticipation of litigation. Tax-La subsequanriy clarified its response by listing four specific docaments as to which it assertsd.a privilege and which it would withhoid from j CAJ3, and agrsed to provida ths escaining documents within ths scope of the discovery request. Upon further consideration of CA33's request, Tax-La has dotarminsd that it will inveX3 tas vott product privilegs, pursuant t's 10 c.F.R. 32.740 (b) (2) and Rula 23 of the 73(aral Aulas of Civil Procedure, as to ther following additional ) documenta piapared in anticip' bica ~ef litigation a I 1. Profxt moni'Ecrins led W11ustibn'isYorth pr171 rid by i Joutharn 2nginaaring c:spany ('Ocucharn :nginaaring') datad 2/35, 3/33, 4/3J, 1/85, 3/39, 10/33, 12/13, GD3 Aaeociatas, Inc. ("Gca*) dated 4/8 6, 2/84, and By/ 6/84, 9/84.; 2'. Southern Engineering cash flow estimates, telecopied from Jim McGaughy to J. D. Copeland, Brazos 31ectric Power Cooperative, Inc., dated 6/23/95. 3. Memorandus by Jim Modaughy, southern Engineering, to fils, dated 8/27/85, regarding various talaphone es11s l to TUSC. 4. Memorandum f rom Rugh Baker, Southern Engineering, to Jim McGaughy, dated 6/26/85, regarding Comanche Peak i Cost Projections (with, data attached). 1/ GDS was formed in February, 1986 by seversi former principals and engloyees-of Southern. Shortly af ter las f ormation, GDR was retained by. Tex-La to continue the plant monitoring services that had been performed my Southern angineering. Soutnern angineering's role was terminated at that kine. All persons identified as working for Southern presently work for GD8.
3 I S. Notes of Days Garlington, Southern Engineering,
- sgarding TOCCC N2C Fuello Meeting, 2/3/38 Arlingten, 73xas.
6. Notes of Dave Garlington, Southern Engineering, regarding TCCCC meeting with NRC,12/15, Arlington, Texas. 7. Notes of Dave Garlington, Southern Engineering, i regarding meeting in Betheada between CAJ3 and N3c technical staff, 11/19/85.. 8. Notes of Dave Garlington, Southern Engineering, regarding meeting in Granbury, Texas, notween all parties, dated 11/5/33. 9. Notes of cave Gar 11ngton, Southern 2ngineering, rogarding mesting in crancury, Tsxss, netwaan TT:c0 and Mac esgarding Stone & Webatar piping system analysis status, dated 10/2/$5. 10. Notes of Dave Garlington, GDS, regarding 8/7/88 meeting with John Beek and Terry Tyler of TCOCO (includes typed list of questions for John Beck). 11. Notes of 8/8/86 GDS tour of Comanche Peak sad meetings with TUGCC personnel (author not named). 12. Notes of Dave Garlington, Southern angineering, regarding 4/12/84 tour of Comanche Peak and meetings with TU0C0 personnel. 13. Notes of 4/17-18/86 CD$ tour of Comanche Peak and meetings with TUGCC personnel (author not namad). 14. Notes of 4/5/86 meeting with 311* council (authoc not named). 15. Notes of 2/10-11/86 GD8 tour of Comanche Peak and of l' 2/27/86 meeting with John Finneran, TOGCC (author not named). 14. Notes of 12/85 00s tour of Comanche Peak and meetings with TuoCC personnel (author not named). 7 Notes of Septemaer/ October, 1945 gds tours of Comanche Peat and meetings with TUGCC personnel (author not
9 4 la. Notes of July / August, 1945 Gts tours of comancha Peak .and meetings vita TOGCC Peraonnel (author not namad). 19. Notes of April /May/ June, 1333 CD3 tours of Comanche Peak and =eetings with 700cc paraonnel (author not named). 20. Handwritten summary of weekly statua reports by Dave Garlington, Southern Enginaering, dated 10/10/$5. 21. Handwritten summary of Unit 2 weekly status reporta prepared by Dave Garlington, southern Engineering, dated 10/24/85. 12. Letter from John Butts, Presideat of Tex-Le, to Jim McGaughy, GD8, dated 4/2/84, regarding TtulC construction permit expiration. k3. Memorandum from Jim McGaughy, GC2, to John 3utts, Tax =La, and Richard McCasx111, Brasos, dstad April 30, j 1946, reg.arding meeting with 3111 counsil. i
Er/E0 DEC 1 1986
- ~ s,, r.,
LBP ~ 6i. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 86 DEC -1 A10:39 Before Administrative Judges: . Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr, Kenneth A. McCollom Dr. Walter H. Jordan ) In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL ) 50-446-OL ) TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.) - -~ ) ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, ) Units 1 and 2)- ) ) November 28, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORANDUM (Discovery of Tex-La Documents) On November 4, 1986, Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Irc. 1 (Applicants ) filed their response to Citizens Association for Sound Energy's (CASE's) motion to compel the production of certain Tex-La documents. Tex-La argues that the documents are privileged because they were prepared for litigation between it and Applicants' managing part-ner, Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al. ; they cite Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 675 S. Ct. 385 (1947) and Texas Utilities Electric Compa-ny, 20 NRC 1464, 1473 (1984). l i I Although Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al. is generally referred to as Applicants in this case, it has pemTtted Tex-La, a minority ) owner, to respond to this motion. See Applicants' Response to CASE (10/20/86) Motion to Compel Tex-La Documents, November 4,1986. l l 1
5 Tex-La Documents: 2 We~ accept Tex-La's characterization of the disputed documents, as follows: In April, 1985, Tex-La requested its attorneys. with the help of Southern Engineering, to prepare a detailed study of the history of the problems at Comanche Peak and of -TUEC's [ Texas Utilities - Electric Company's] potential liability to Tex-La as a result of these problems. This report took several months to complete, and, around the time it was finished, a draft complaint against TUEC was prepared for filing in Texas state court. [T]he information in these reports and in their sup-porting documents go to the very heart of Tex-La's case against TUEC. They represent Tex-La's only opportunity for independent verification of the status of the design, construction, and licens-ing effort for the plant. [T]he reports served the... purpose of gathering, distilling, and analyzing information that would be used as part of the basis of a law suit against TVEC... We also accept Tex-La's representations concerning the limited direct t ) observation of plant operations contained in these Southern Engineering documents. However, although we have not examined these documents, we consider them relevant to CASE's preparation. First, CASE has argued that l Applicant's management style contributed to the perception among quality ] assurance workers that they were being harassed and quality was being sacrificed for schedule; it appears likely that Tex-La's consultant has examined matters that CASE will consider relevant to this argument concerning management style. Second, CASE is attempting to show a widespread breakdown of quality assurance for design and construction (an argument supported in part by our decision of December 1983). Although there is no certainty that Southern Engineering's view of "the
T' . 4-Tex-La Documents: 3 history of the problems atL Comanche Peak" will support CASE's view,- there is a plausible causal link between management problems in other areas and management problems with quality assurance. Hence, it is i CASE, and-not Applicants, that should decide whether these reports are helpful to it. In summary, we consider the Southern Engineering documents to be discoverable because of their relevance and because they may suggest further avenues of discovery. We agree with Applicants in approving of the principle that.the work product privilege applies to the protection of information gathered in one case that is. sought in another. But we_ would not apply.that general principle in this case. For purposes of this litigation, Applicants are one party. Their intramural squabbles may not be asserted as a reason to deprive interve-nors of information relevant to the preparation of their case. Once the information exists, we do not consider it relevant to inquire whether it exists' because of problems existing within Applicants' team. They are collectively responsible for meeting their discovery obligation. That still leads to a squabble that we arguably ought to resolve. Tex-La does not want Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al. or its lead attorney.to be able to gain access to this information, which it can then use against Tex-La in the pending state court litigation. To us, this seems a private squabble related to contractual rights and claims being asserted between the parties. If Texas Utilities seeks access to this information it can obtain it by agreement with Tex-La or by compul-sion in the state proceeding. We do not consider it our role to
r' I Tex-La Documentsi 4 interfere in this private squabble, even if it.makes it harder for the " lead" attorney to prepare its entire case. If indeed the information is not relevant or important in our case, as Tex-La-has argued, then Texas Utilities will not be harmed. If it is relevant, it affects the joint interests ~ of Texas Utilities and Tex-La, which should reach an accommodation for their mutual benefit or should settle the question in state court. We note with some concern allegations that Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels and Wooldridge (the law firm), who are lead attorneys in this litigation, are also engaged in suing Tex-La in state court. It would j appear that Tex-La is a client of the law firm, which was paid by its ) '{ client to acquire expertise and knowledge that now appears to be avail-l j l able for use.in state court against it..We note that this situation ] threatens unnecessarily to complicate this case and may require our action in the future. However, given our view of the pending discovery motion, we do not find these allegations relevant to the outcome of the motion currently before us. To protect the information from Texas Utilities and avoid prejudic-ing.the state-court contest, we shall direct CASE to write and execute a protective agreement. If Tex-La approves of the agreement and it is j executed, it shall constitute an Order of this Board. Should Tex-La not approve of the agreement, it shall be submitted to the Board for its consideration.
n- , O 1 - *p.. + Tex-La Documents: 5-0RDER i m For all. the foregoing reasons-and based on consideration of the. - entire record in-this matter, it is this-28th day'of November 1986 ~ . ORDERED: That CASE ~ shall write and execute a' protectiv.e agreement, pursuant ' to'the attached memorandum.. The. executed agreement shall become the-Order of this Board. That promptly after the protective order is-duly executed, Tex-La Electric Cooperative.of Texas, Inc. 'shall promptly make available to CASE, in Washington, D.C. or another. mutually. agreed site, allyof the-- Southern Engineering documents that are the subject of this discovery request. FOR THE ATOMIgFETYANDLICENSINGBOARD-d.0 ( Peter B. Bloch, Chairman. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland [ southern /BLOCH5] i
'o 00LM Ep og CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE '87 JW 22 P2 :31 oneoftheattorneysforth"f,'Ijk(j I, Robert K. Gad III, 19 dd Applicants herein, hereby certify.that on June 19, made service of the within " Applicant Texas _. Utilities Electric Company's Petition for Directed' Certification of Licensing Board Order of March 12, 1987" by' mailing copies. thereof,. postage prepaid, to: Alan S. Rosenthal,- Esquire Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Administrative Judge Licensing Appeal Board Atomic, Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555 Peter B. Bloch, Esquire' Dr. W. Reed Johnson Chairman Administrative Judge j Administrative Judge-115 Falcon Drive, Colthurst Atomic Safety and Licensing Charlottesville, VA. 22901 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Administrative Judge Administrative Judge j 881 W. Outer Drive 1107 West Knapp Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 Chairman Chairman j Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel ) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j Commission Commission 1 I Washington, D.^ 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsberg, Esquire . Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Austin, Texas 78711 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i 1 i
.6 Anthony Roisman, Esquire Mr. Lanny A. Sinkin ' Executive Director Christic Institute Suite 600 1324 North Capitol Street 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, D.C. 10005 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Robert D. Martin GAP - Midwest Office Regional Administrator, 104 E. Wisconsin Avenue-B Region IV Appleton, WI 54911-4897 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson' Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Administrative Judge Office of the. Executive Oak Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.O. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Nancy Williams Resident Inspector Cygna Energy Services, Inc. Comanche Peak S.E.S. 101 California Street c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 1000 Commission San Francisco, California 94111 P. O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S-Polk Street Dallas, Texas 75224 I .9: 1 m G[dIII ~ R. K. 1 ) I}}