|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20197J2871998-12-11011 December 1998 Initial Decision (Application for Senior Reactor Operator License).* Appeal of R Herring of NRC Denial of Application for SRO License Denied.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981211 ML20151W5721998-09-11011 September 1998 NRC Staff Presentation in Support of Denial of Senior Reactor Operator License for Dl Herring.* Staff Decision to Fail Dl Herring on Category a of SRO Exam,Clearly Justified. Staff Denial of Herring SRO License Should Be Sustained ML20151W5941998-09-11011 September 1998 Affidavit of Cd Payne.* Affidavit Re NRC Staff Proposed Denial of Rl Herring Application for Senior Reactor Operator License for Use at Catawba Nuclear Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20151Y0601998-09-11011 September 1998 Affidavit of DC Payne.* Supports Denial of Application of Rl Herring for SRO License ML20151W6131998-09-0808 September 1998 Affidavit of Mn Leach in Support of NRC Staff Response to Rl Herring Written Presentation.* ML20151W6311998-09-0808 September 1998 Affidavit of ET Beadle.* Affidavit Relates to Denial of Senior Reactor Operator License Application for Rl Herring. with Certificate of Svc ML20237B6931998-08-13013 August 1998 Rl Herring (Denial of Operator License for Plant).* Rl Herring Submitted Written Presentation Arguments,Data, Info Matl & Other Supporting Evidence,Per Presiding Officer 980630 Order & 10CFR2.1233.W/one Oversize Drawing ML20237A3831998-08-12012 August 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Rl Herring Written Presentation.* Staff Respectfully Requests Motion for Extension of Time of 2 Wks to Respond to Herring Presentation Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237B5571998-08-12012 August 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Rl Herring Written Presentation.* Granted by C Bechhoefer on 980818.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980818 ML20236T8511998-07-21021 July 1998 Specification of Claims.* Rl Herring Claims That Answer Given on Exam Was Correct When TSs Are Considered & When Design Basis Document Considered in Conjunction W/Duke Power Nuclear Sys Div.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980727 ML20236F5391998-06-30030 June 1998 Memorandum & Order (Hearing File & Spec of Claim).* Orders That Brief Spec of Claims Should Be Filed by Herring,Telling Why He Believes Staff Erred in Grading Exam.Staff Must Furnish Hearing File.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980630 ML20236F5631998-06-30030 June 1998 Notice of Hearing.* Presiding Officer Has Granted Request of Rl Herring for Hearing on NRC Denial of Application for Operator License for Plant.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980630 ML20149K8221997-07-29029 July 1997 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR70.24, Criticality Accident Requirements. Exemption Granted TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources ML20065P4491994-04-21021 April 1994 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50.55 Recommendation to Incorporate Proposed Rule to Adopt ASME Code Subsections IWE & Iwl ML20044G7371993-05-25025 May 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 171, FY91 & 92 Proposed Rule Implementing Us Court of Appeals Decision & Rev of Fee Schedules;100% Fee Recovery,FY93. Opposes Rule ML20101R5931992-07-0606 July 1992 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Loss of All Alternating Current Power & Draft Reg Guide 1.9,task DG-1021.Opposes Rule ML20091Q8661992-01-31031 January 1992 Comment Opposing Draft NUREG-1022,Rev 1, Event Reporting Sys,10CFR50.72 & 50.73,Clarification of NRC Sys & Guidelines for Reporting ML20087F7471992-01-15015 January 1992 Comment Opposing Rev 1 of NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Sys ML20246J6571989-08-31031 August 1989 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty on Licensee in Amount of $75,000 for Violations Noted in Insp on 881127-890204. Payment of Civil Penalty Requested within 30 Days of Order Date.Evaluations & Conclusions Encl ML20247J8921989-08-31031 August 1989 Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $75,000, Based on Violations Noted in Insp on 881127-890204,including Operation in Modes 1-4 W/One Independent Containment Air Return & Hydrogen Skimmer Sys Inoperable for 42 Days ML20205N1471988-10-20020 October 1988 Comment on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-50 Re Provision That Authorizes Nuclear Power Plant Operators to Deviate from Tech Specs During Emergency.Request by C Young Should Be Denied ML20234D2821987-09-15015 September 1987 Joint Intervenors Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing for 2 Wks & for Immediate Prehearing Conference.* Urges That Hearing Re Offsite Emergency Planning at Plant,Scheduled for 870928,be Continued Until 871013.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20198C5771986-05-14014 May 1986 Transcript of 860514 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Catawba 2 in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-86.Viewgraphs Encl ML20203N4561986-02-20020 February 1986 Unexecuted Amend 6 to Indemnity Agreement B-100,replacing Item 3 of Attachment to Agreement W/Listed Info ML20151P2231985-12-31031 December 1985 Order Extending Time Until 860110 for Commissioners to Review ALAB-825.Served on 851231 ML20136H7231985-11-21021 November 1985 Decision ALAB-825,affirming Remaining Part of ASLB OL Authorization,Permitting Applicant to Receive & Store Spent Fuel Generated at Duke Power Co Oconee & McGuire Nuclear Power Facilities.Served on 851121 ML20138B3611985-10-11011 October 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851025 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-813.Served on 851011 ML20137W4311985-10-0202 October 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851011 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-813.Served on 851003 ML20134N5761985-09-0404 September 1985 Order Extending Time Until 851004 for Commission to Act to Review ALAB-813.Served on 850904 ML20126M2091985-07-30030 July 1985 Order Amending First Paragraph of Footnote 126 Re Need for Power & Financial Qualifications in ALAB-813 . Served on 850731 ML20126K7701985-07-26026 July 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850730 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-9.Served on 850729 ML20129C2351985-07-26026 July 1985 Decision ALAB-813 Affirming Aslab Authorization of Issuance of Full Power Ol,Except Insofar as Receipt & Storage Onsite of Spent Fuel Generated at Other Facilities.Served on 850729 ML20129K1651985-07-19019 July 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850726 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-9.Served on 850719 ML20129H9361985-07-10010 July 1985 Unexecuted Amend 5 to Indemnity Agreement B-100,changing Items 1 & 3 of Attachment ML20128K2171985-07-0808 July 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850719 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-9.Served on 850709 ML20127P0991985-06-28028 June 1985 Transcript of 850628 Supplemental Oral Argument in Bethesda, Md.Pg 99-169 ML20133C5201985-06-26026 June 1985 Undated Testimony of PM Reep Re Welding Inspector Concerns. Rept of Verbal Harassment Encl ML20127K7171985-06-24024 June 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850709 for Commission to Act to Review Director'S Decision DD-85-9 ML20126K6391985-06-17017 June 1985 Order Advising That Counsel Be Familiar W/Content of Commission Request for Public Comment on Decision to Exercise Discretionary Price-Anderson Act Authority to Extend Govt Indemnity to Spent.... Served on 850618 ML20126B8101985-06-13013 June 1985 Order Scheduling Supplemental Oral Argument on Pending Appeals on 850628 in Bethesda,Md Re Public Notice of Hearing Concerning Use of Facility for Receipt & Storage of Spent Fuel from Oconee & Mcguire.Served on 850613 ML20126E4601985-06-13013 June 1985 Notice of Supplemental Oral Argument on Pending Appeals on 850628 in Bethesda,Md.Served on 850613 ML20125B4251985-06-0707 June 1985 Responds to Aslab 850603 Order Requesting Response to NRC 850529 Filing Re Whether Notice of Proposal to Use Catawba to Store Oconee & McGuire Spent Fuel Discretionary or Required.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20126A7631985-06-0404 June 1985 Director'S Decision DD-85-9 Granting & Denying in Part Palmetto Alliance Request for Mod,Suspension or Revocation of CPs for Facilities Due to Harassment & Intimidation of QC Inspectors ML20129A6381985-06-0303 June 1985 Order Allowing Applicant to File & Serve Response to NRC 850529 Assertion Re Storage of Spent Fuel Generated at Another Facility Constituting Use of Commercial Utilization Facility No Later than 850607.Served on 850604 ML20128P0001985-05-29029 May 1985 NRC Views on Whether Notice of Proposal to Use Facility to Store Oconee & McGuire Spent Fuel Required or Discretionary. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20128P1031985-05-29029 May 1985 Memorandum Responding to Palmetto Alliance/Carolina Environ Study Group & Staff 850517 Memoranda Asserting That Fr Notice Not Reasonably Calculated to Inform of Requests Re Spent Fuel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127K0231985-05-20020 May 1985 Order Extending Time Until 850529 for Aslab to Act to File & Svc Reply Memoranda.Served on 850521 ML20127G2281985-05-17017 May 1985 Memorandum Responding to 850425 Aslab Order Addressing Four Questions Re Receipt & Storage of Spent Fuel.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127H0041985-05-17017 May 1985 Response to Aslab Questions on Adequacy of Notice of Proposed Use of Facility to Store Spent Fuel from Oconee & McGuire Facilities.Aslab Has No Jurisdiction Over Proposal. Certificate of Svc Encl 1998-09-08
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20151W5721998-09-11011 September 1998 NRC Staff Presentation in Support of Denial of Senior Reactor Operator License for Dl Herring.* Staff Decision to Fail Dl Herring on Category a of SRO Exam,Clearly Justified. Staff Denial of Herring SRO License Should Be Sustained ML20237A3831998-08-12012 August 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Rl Herring Written Presentation.* Staff Respectfully Requests Motion for Extension of Time of 2 Wks to Respond to Herring Presentation Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc ML20237B5571998-08-12012 August 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Rl Herring Written Presentation.* Granted by C Bechhoefer on 980818.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980818 ML20234D2821987-09-15015 September 1987 Joint Intervenors Emergency Motion to Continue Hearing for 2 Wks & for Immediate Prehearing Conference.* Urges That Hearing Re Offsite Emergency Planning at Plant,Scheduled for 870928,be Continued Until 871013.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127H0041985-05-17017 May 1985 Response to Aslab Questions on Adequacy of Notice of Proposed Use of Facility to Store Spent Fuel from Oconee & McGuire Facilities.Aslab Has No Jurisdiction Over Proposal. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20127N0831985-05-17017 May 1985 Memorandum in Response to 850425 Aslab Order for Intervenors to Address Spent Fuel Storage Questions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20106G4911985-02-13013 February 1985 Opposition to Apellants Palmetto Alliance & Carolina Environ Study Group Brief Re Known But Uncorrected QA Program Workmanship Defects That Could Affect Issuance of Ol. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101E8341984-12-21021 December 1984 Opposition to Intervenors Application for Stay Pending Administrative & Judicial Review.Intervenors Have Not Provided Evidence of Error in Any Rulings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20108E0311984-12-10010 December 1984 Application for Stay Pending Administrative & Judicial Review of 840622 Partial Initial Decision & 840918 Supplemental Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20097J3781984-09-17017 September 1984 Motion for Further Proceedings to Determine Extent & Significance of Foreman Override Practice at Plant.Further Discovery Requested ML20093N5861984-07-30030 July 1984 Motion for Changes to Transcript of Emergency Planning Hearing to Correct Matl Errors.Aslb Requested to Issue Order Directing That Evidentiary Record Be Amended,Incorporating Encl Changes ML20090F3441984-07-16016 July 1984 Motion for Extension of Time for Filing of Briefs to Provide That Briefs of All Parties Would Be Filed After Rendering of Remaining Partial Initial Decisions Now Expected in Oct. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20090G2661984-07-16016 July 1984 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Briefs Re 840702 Appeal of 840622 Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning.Granted on 840720 by Aslab ML20092N1411984-06-28028 June 1984 Answer Opposing Palmetto Alliance & Carolina Environ Study Group 840531 Motion to Compel Discovery Re Tdi Diesel Generators.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20093E3981984-06-27027 June 1984 Request for Action Under 10CFR2.206 to Institute Proceeding to Modify,Suspend or Revoke CP Re Alleged Instances of Harassment & Intimidation of QC Inspectors & Numerous Violations of 10CFR50,App B ML20091J4891984-05-31031 May 1984 Motion to Quash Subpoena for Tl Odom,Chairman,Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence ML20091K6001984-05-31031 May 1984 Joint Motion to Compel Discovery from Applicants Re 840326 Interrogatories & Requests to Produce Documents on Emergency Diesel Generator Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20205Q7791984-05-0101 May 1984 Response to Applicant 840411 Motion for Authorization to Issue License to Load Fuel & Conduct Certain Precritical Testing.Affidavit of Gn Lauber & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083K6041984-04-11011 April 1984 Motion for Authorization to Issue License to Load Fuel & Conduct Certain Precritical Tests ML20088A0731984-04-0606 April 1984 Motion to Dismiss Intervenor late-filed Contention Re Crankshaft Design of Transamerica Delaval Emergency Diesel Generators.Intervenors Cannot Be Expected to Make Any Sound Contribution.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087P4061984-04-0404 April 1984 Motion for Protective Order Re Further Response to Palmetto Alliance & Carolina Environ Study Group Interrogatories & Requests to Produce Documents on Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20080L1461984-02-14014 February 1984 Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Partial Proposed Findings from 840222 to 840307.Consolidation Will Obviate Need for cross-referencing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086L3721984-02-0202 February 1984 Response Opposing Applicant Motion to Bifurcate Hearing Re Emergency Plan Contentions.Bifureation Would Inhibit Development of Adequate Record on Emergency Plan Issues. Affirmation of Svc Encl ML20079N3541984-01-25025 January 1984 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Applicant & NRC Answers to Palmetto Alliance Motion for Directed Certification of ASLB Denial of Discovery on Newly Admitted Contentions ML20079N3611984-01-25025 January 1984 Brief in Reply to Applicant & NRC Answers to Palmetto Motion for Directed Certification of ASLB Denial of Discovery.Fair Hearing Should Be Held on Newly Admitted Contentions ML20079G5011984-01-18018 January 1984 Motion to Bifurcate Hearing & Request for Appointment of Separate ASLB to Rule on Emergency Plan Contentions ML20083J2341984-01-12012 January 1984 Petition for Directed Certification of ASLB 831230 Denial of Applicant Motion to Reconsider Order Revising & Admitting Emergency Planning Contention 11 Re Size of Emergency Planning Zone.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083J4251984-01-0303 January 1984 Response Opposing Palmetto Alliance Motions to Direct Certification of ASLB Rulings on Discovery Re in Camera Witness Testimony & to Require That Record Remain Open Pending Opportunity for Discovery.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083C0511983-12-16016 December 1983 Motion for Direct Certification of ASLB 831213 & 14 Denials of Discovery by Palmetto Alliance on Issues Raised by in Camera Witnesses.Record Should Remain Open.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082L0951983-12-0202 December 1983 Answer Opposing Govt Accountability Project Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief & Motion to Strike.Portions of Motion & Affidavits W/O Record Support & Invalid.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082J4071983-12-0101 December 1983 Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae Out of Time. Brief Would Address Commission 831117 Order Deferring Util 831115 Request to Stay ASLB Rulings Re Intervenor Contact W/ Util Employee Witnesses.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082J4451983-12-0101 December 1983 Amicus Curiae Brief Opposing Commission 831117 Order on Applicant Motion to Stay ASLB 831110 & Aslab 831114 Rulings. Order Violates Due Process Rights of Applicant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082E1441983-11-23023 November 1983 Answer Opposing Applicant Motion for Stay of ASLB & Aslab Orders.Public Interest Favors Denying Motion.Applicants Failed to Prove Need for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082E5321983-11-23023 November 1983 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Re Util Motion for Stay of ASLB Order Permitting Intervenor Contact W/Util Employees Scheduled to Testify ML20082E5481983-11-23023 November 1983 Amicus Curiae Brief on Util 831115 Request for Stay of ASLB 831114 Order Re Intervenor Contact W/Util Employees Scheduled to Testify in OL Hearings ML20086A9341983-11-15015 November 1983 Motion for Stay of ASLB 831110 & Aslab 831114 Orders Re Discussions Between Employee Witnesses & Intervenors.Since Hearing in Progress,Contact Between Util Employee Witnesses & Intervenor Inappropriate.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081K6491983-11-0303 November 1983 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830929 Order Revising & Admitting Contention 11 & for Rejection of Contention or Application of 10CFR2.758 Procedures or Referral of Ruling Per 10CFR2.730(f) ML20078B5791983-09-23023 September 1983 Response Opposing Palmetto Alliance 830909 Oral Motion to Reopen Discovery on Contention 6 Re RHR & HVAC Sys,Auxiliary Feedwater Sys & General Design.Issues Do Not Constitute New Info or New Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20078B8511983-09-23023 September 1983 Objection to ASLB 830914 Prehearing Conference Order, Motion for Reconsideration & Other Relief & Request for Certification or Referral.W/List of Witnesses to Be Subpoenaed Re Palmetto Contention 6 & Certificate of Svc ML20078C8151983-09-23023 September 1983 Objections to ASLB 830914 Prehearing Conference Order.Since Util Has Burden of Proof on Contention 44/18,util Should Have Opportunity to Provide Rebuttal Testimony ML20076L6661983-09-14014 September 1983 Petition Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify CP to Require Independent Contractor Review of as-built Conditions,Design Deficiencies & Qa/Qc Program & to Require Mgt Audit.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080D4721983-08-26026 August 1983 Motion to Strike or to Require Palmetto Alliance to Comply W/Obligation to Specify Any Addl Concerns of WR Mcafee & Nr Hoopingarner Under Contention 6.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080D5311983-08-26026 August 1983 Answer Opposing Util & NRC Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 11,17 & 27.Many Substantial & Matl Issues of Fact Exist Affecting Public Health & Safety & Environ. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080C2231983-08-17017 August 1983 Response Opposing Palmetto Alliance 830805 Motion for Sanctions Against Util by Dismissing Motions for Summary Disposition.Motion Factually Inaccurate in Accusations & Legally Insufficient.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20076A8081983-08-15015 August 1983 Response Opposing Util & NRC Motions for Summary Disposition of Carolina Environ Study Group Contention 18/Palmetto Alliance 44.Matl Facts Do Not Relate to Reactor Ability to Withstand Stress.Affirmation of Svc Encl ML20077J5791983-08-15015 August 1983 Motion to Require Palmetto Alliance Compliance W/Terms of ASLB 830620 Memorandum & Order to Advise Other Parties of Addl Concerns within Scope of Contention 6.New Alleged Const Deficiencies Must Be Delineated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20077J4581983-08-12012 August 1983 Answer Opposing Applicant Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Contention 6 & Response to Staff 830803 Supporting Answer.Substantial & Matl Issues of Fact Exist ML20024E2931983-08-0505 August 1983 Motion for Sanctions Against Applicant Based on Behavior Re Discovery & Prehearing Procedures & Re Contentions 16 & DES- 19.Util Misrepresented Facts.Util Motion for Summary Disposition Should Be Dismissed.W/Certificate of Svc ML20024E3441983-08-0505 August 1983 Response to NRC & Util Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 16,DES-19 & 14.Matl Facts as to Which There Is Genuine Issue to Be Heard Encl for Contentions 16 & DES-19 ML20024C9911983-07-15015 July 1983 Motion for Partial Summary Disposition of Palmetto Alliance Contention 6.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicants Entitled to Favorable Decision.Argument & Documentation Supporting Motion Encl.Related Correspondence 1998-09-11
[Table view] |
Text
. . - -
u ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00$,,\
NUCLEAR REGU1ATORY COMMISSION ,
fg'1k i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 3OARD g,13 t c4-
.: l- '
U In the Matter of ) '
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et ~~ -
al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413
) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ~
PALMETTO ALLIANCE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE OPSER i 1
Duke Power Company, et al. (" Applicants"), pursuant to 10 CFR $2.730(c), hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
("Boarc") in the captioned proceeding to issue an crder denying the motion of Intervenor Palmetto Alliance (" Palmetto Alliance")
for a protective order regarding discovery served upon it by 1/
Applicants.
I. INTRODUCTION On April 9, 1982, Applicants served upon Palmetto Alliance
" Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories d (hereafter cited as
" Applicants' Interrogatories"), which dealt, inter alia, with Palmetto Alliance Contentions 6 and 7. Applicants' Interrogatories I were limited in scope, directed to the plain language of Palmetto Alliance's contentions, and sought only to have Palmetto Alliance i
specify the nature of its concerns, as reflected in its contentions, _.
1/ On September 9, 1982 Applicants filed a similar response with '
regard to Palmetto Alliance Contentions 16 ar~ 27. While that response could be incorporated by reference, for the convenience of the Board and parties it is repeated.
l
! g_.... _ . . . . . . _ _ , . .
1 8212270321 821220 i
! PDR ADOCK 05000413 i l
1
<0 PDR
& and to reveal the bases for those concerns. Palmetto Alliance .
" responded" to Applicants' Interrogatories on April 28, 1982 2/
and acccmpanied its " response" with the instant motion.3/
In its Motion, Palmetto Alliance asks this Licensing Board to issue a protective or6er Which it asserts is necessary "to protect [it] from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression and undue burden or expense in the compilation and production of matters not properly discoverable as sought by Applicants." Motion, p. 1.
Palmetto Alliance asserts that occh a protective order is justified because it claims that Applicants seek the disclosure of certain confidential communications between its memners, officers and employees with its counsel regarding legal opinions and advice. Motion, p. 2. 4/ With respect to this claim, Palnetto 2/ That " response" is the subject of "Appiicants' Motion to Compel or, In the Alternative, to Dismiss Contentions" also filed this date.
-3/ April
" Palmetto Alliance Motion For Protective Order" (" Motion")
28, 1S82.
In its Motion, Palmetto Alliance characterices Applicants' Interrogatories as a " discovery offensive" against it, directed "largely [to) subjects for Which virtually all information known to Intervenor has already been fully disclosed on the reccrd of the prehearing conference." Palmetto Alliance asserts that Applicants' discovery recuests of it " border [] on. . .harrassment" but nonetheless " commits itself" to mee: the spirit cf the discovery rules. Motion, p. 2 Applicants' views on the nature and extent of Palmetto Alliance's compliance with its commitment to meet the " spirit" -
of the discovery rules is set forth in its " Motion to Compel or, In the Alternative, to Dismiss Contentions" also filed this date.
4/ Palmetto Alliance's Motion also seeks protection with regard to Interrogatories concerning Contentions 3, 4, 26 and 35.
Given the Board's December 1, 1982 Order, these contentions are no longer of moment.
I ,
6 Alliance apparently believes that both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work produce doctrine bar much of the discovery Applicants seek. .
In Applicants' view, as will be set forth in detail below, Palmetto Allianc~e has failed to' demonstrate the need for the Licensing Board to issue such an order. Palmetto Alliance's Motion is imperdissibly vague and for that reason alone should be denied. In any event, Palmetto Alliance has totally failed to demonstrate that either the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product privilege applies to any information Applicants se ek to discover. Moreover, Palmetto Alliance has f ailed to demonstrate that Applicants' discovery requests are unduly burdensome.
II. ARGUMENT A. Intervenor's motion for a protective order is impermissibly vague and should be denied.
It is well-established that any party objecting to interrogatories or requests to produce may eliminate or modify its obligation to respond to such reqacst by moving that the licensing board issue a prote'ctive order. Ecwever, the movant seeking such an crder must establish good cause before it is issued. 10 CFR 52.740(c) .
Regardless of its basis for seeking a protective order (e.g., attorn ey-clier.t privilege, proprietary informatien, undue oppression), the moving party has certain obligations which it must satisfy. Chief among them is the obligation to set forth
- with specificity why each particular interrogatory or group of
_4 s
i l
l related interrogatories or request for the eroduction of '.
documents is objectionable. It must aise set forth the factual
- S basis supporting each and every one of its objections. Houston
- ; c'"
Lighting & Power Company et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), L3P-80-il, 11 NRC 47 7, 480 (1980). It is not enough simply to assert in general that discovery reque sts are improper. .
[T]he ob je ctions posed against. . . interrogatories must. . .be reasonable and specific, and ray not utilize generalined
" maxims" or recite legal rote. References to "the Applicant's burden of proof" as an objection, for example, are unavailing to avoid a party'.s obligation to re'spond to a proper ciscovery request ,or in:ormation in its possession.
[ Matter of Boston Edison Company et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), L3P-75-30, 1 SRC 57 9, 585.]
In short, in order to meet its burden of demonstrating that certain information or documents within its knowledge or possession are entitled to protection on the basis of urivilec,e, .
it is incumbent on one asserting such a privilege to: (1) identify or specify the nature of the information or document for Which it asserts the privilege, and (2) explain with respect to such information or cocument w.ny it .ce11 eves t.ne priv11ec,e is warranted. 4A Moore's Federal Practice (1982 ed.). 533.27, pp.
3 3-16 3 through 33-163.5/
5/ Secause the NRC disecvery rules are based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure s , judicial decisions construing the latter are of ten relied upon by NRC tribunals in resolving discover.v disputes. Matter of Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ALA3- 3 0 0, 2 NRC 7 5 2, 760 (1975). Such judicial _
decisions confirm that the burden imposed on those objecting to an interrogatory on the basis of privilege is to specify the nature of the privileged information and to explain Why the claim of privilege is warranted. See, e.g., Miller v.
Doctor's General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136, 139 (W.D. Okla.
1977); Biliske v. American Live Stock Insurance Co., 73 F.R.D. 124, 126 (W . D. Okla. 1977); Camco, Inc. v. Baker Oil
_Too ls , Inc., 4 5 F. R. D. 384 (S.D. Tex. 1968); Payer, Hewitt &
t ootnote Continuec.
s Even a cursory reading of Palmetto A11isace's Motion reveals that it has failed to satisfy these most basic procedural recuirements imposed on any party in NRC proceedings wishing to prevent the disclosure of information otherwise discoverable.
The Motion is a textbook example ~ of one which simply recites "generaliced ' maxims'" and " legal rose." Intervenor has not specified Which Interrogatories or Requests to' Produce it f.inds ob je ctionable . Nor has it provided the Board with any f actual basis for its objections. And, perhaps even more impoftantly, its Motion does not di sclos e the extent of the protection it s e ek s fr om f utur e disc ove ry . Thus, on these grounds alone, Pa1retto Alliance's Motion should be denied.
- 3. Palmetto Alliance has failed to demanstrate that either the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine applies to information Applicants seek to discover.
The deficiencies in Palmetto Alliances' Motion become even more apparent When examined in light of the prevailing legal standards relevant to the privileges it seeks to assert.
Palmetto Alliances' Motion is not a model of clarity, but it appears that it is attempting to assert both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine as grounds for the sought protective order. It is clear that, as a matter cf law, Palmetto Alliance has f ailed to demonstrate that either the
~
(footnote continued from previous page)
Co. v. Bellanca, 2 6 F . R.D. 219 (D. Del. 1960); cf. C-en era l Dyn ami cs Corp. v. Selb Manufacturine Co., 431 F. 2d 1204, 1212 Tetn Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1162 (1974).
I o -
s attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product privilege applies to information or documents Applicants seek to discover from it. .
~
In general, confidential communications made by a client to an atterney in the course of obtaining legal assistance are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege.5/
Statenents and advice by the attorney to the client are also privileged.1/ The purpose of this privilege is to assure that a client's confidences to his attorney will be protected 'and, therefore, to encourage clients to make a full disclosure of f acts to their legal counsel.E/.
Like all evidentiary privileges, the attorney-client privilege is narrowly construed because it has the effect of withholding relevant inicrmation fro:n the fact finder. Accord-ingly, its use is limited to those situations in which the
.our.cose of the privilege will be servedS/ and it ".=rotects oniv.
those disclosures - necessary to obtain informed legal advice -
which might not have been made . absent the privilege. "10/
It shoald be noted that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to documents or information which existed prior to the forration of the attorney-client relationship. Similarly,
$[ Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976).
2/ Mead Data Cent: a1 v.
U.S. Dept. of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 254 n. 25 (L.C. Cir. 1977).
0/ Fisher v. U.S., supra, 425 U.S. at 403.
1/ Coastal States Gas Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Enerev, 617 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C. Cir. 1980). I 10/ Fisher v. United States, sucra, 425 U.S. at 403.
c .
o materials Which were prepared or communicated for independent reasons (i.e., matters of independent knowledge), are not ,
privileged nerely because they are in .the possession of an attorney.1h/
- And, communications made to an attorney which the attorney must make public in discharging his duties, as a natter of logic, do not fall within this privilege.
Although the attorney-client privilege and the attorney i
wo rk-pr oduc t doctrine are derived from the same common law -
basi s ,12/ the work product principle is distinct from th'e attorney-client privilege.E3/ The work product doctrine, !
recognized in Eickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) and codified in 7,ule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,hi/
confers a cualified E/ privilege from disclosure upon certain l
information gathered by an attorney in anticipation of possible litigation.
In Eickman, the Supreme Court ruled that the attempt of one party to obtain from another " written statements, private memoranda, and personal recollections prepared or forned by an .
adverse party's counsel in the course of his legal duties" fell 1
" ou t s id e the arena of discovery. . ." even though they were not l 11/ Grant v. United States, 227 U.S. 74 (1913).
i 11/ v. .e Grand Jury Proceedines, 473 F.2d 840, 844 (8th Cir. '
1973). -
l 2d/ United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 n.ll (1975).
2d/ Of cours e , discovery be fore the NRC is governed by provisions i based generally on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pilcrim, supra, L3P-75-30, 1 NRC at 581.
25/ United States v. Nobles, suora, 422 U.S. at 239.
l -
l i
e within the scope of the attorney-client' privilege.l!/ While emphasizing the need for a lawyer to prepare his case unfettered by unnecessary intrusions by opp = sing . parties, the Court
~
intimated that if a party seeking disclosure of such material made an adequate showing cf need, .which was not done in Eickman, the material could be made available:
We do not mean to say that all written naterials obtained or prepared by an adversary's counsel with an eye toward litigation are necessarily free from discovery in all cases.
Where relevant and non-privileged facts remain hidden in an attorney's file and where' production of these fact's is essential to the preparation of one's case, discovery may be
.cro.cerlv. had. [Id_. at 511.]
Subsequent decisions have clarified this teaching and indicate that " documents containing the work product of attorneys which .
contain the attorney's thoughts, impressions, views, strategy, conclusions, and other similar information produced by the attorney in anticipation of litigation are to be protected When feasible, .but not at the expense of hiding the non-privileged facts from adversaries or the courts." Xerox Corporation v.
International Business Ma chines Ccrporation, 64 F.R.D. 367, 381-82 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). Thus, it is well-established that, to the e xtent possible, documents must be made available with the privileged information expunged.
Palmetto Alliance has failed to demonstrate that information and/or documents Which it se eks to protect are entitled to the privileges which it asserts. Indeed, the nature of the information sought by Applicants clearly is not s ub je ct to protection.
16/ uickman v.' Taylor, supra, 329 U.S. at 509-11.
_9 F
In their Interrogatories and Requests to Produce, Applicants sought from Palmetto Alliance the basic inferination Vnich bears directly on the dimensions of and bases for Palmetto Alliance's Contentions 6 and 7. Those discovery requests seek no more than to elicit from Palretto Alliance preciselv - how it defines the material termr. in each of its contentions; the standards which _it contends Am.elicants do not meet; why _it contends Applicants do not meet those standards; what 13, believes Applicants must do, in light of its contention's, to operate Catawba safely; and the technical bases (if any) for each of its contentions. If Palmetto Alliance intends to participate in the upcoring hearings in a responsible manner, then it follows that these matters will have to be di2c3osed during such proceedings. Thus, under the standard discussed above, such information is discoverable.
In NRC practice it has been recogniced that information of the natur e sought by Applicants is not s ub je ct to either p rivileg e . In Pilcrim, supra, L3P-73-30, 1 NRC 5 7 9, intervenor s ou ght a protective order against applicants' discovery, esserting bcth privileges. The licensing board rejected intervenor's claim with respect to attorney-client privilege, noting that such does not extend to information obtained from 1
8 other people or sources even though the attorney may have -
accuired such information While representing his client. The board also stated that this privilege does not apply to the discovery of facts within the knowledge of an attorney if the facts were not communicated or confided to him by his client.
The Board reasoned that, because the h'AC intervention rules assume that parties have specific factual bases for their contentions: .
[where) the discovery request seeks to elicit the factual basic for the contention, the intervenor cannot defe.nd against such interrogatory by claiming that the f acte are
" privileged." [Id. at 585.]
The Board also noted that "it is untenable to object to an interrogatory or to refuse to answer on the car.im that [it]
involves 'the work product of an attorney' or the ' atto,rney-client relationship'" in the form of a general objection. In short, in order to prevail on that assertion, detailed objections must be made. Gee pp. 3-5, supra. For the reasons set forth above, this Board should deny Palmetto Alliance's Motier. for a Protective Order.
C. Applicants' discovery requests are not unduly burdensome.
In an attempt to deflect attention from its unwillingness (or inability) to respond to Applicants ' discovery requests, Palmetto Alliance makes the blanket assertion that such discovery requests are annoying, embarrassing, oppressive and unduly burdensome or expensive, asserting that they constitute a
" discovery offensive" that " borders on...harrassment." Motion,
- p. 2. Palmetto Alliance apparently intends this characterization to serve as suppert for the relief requested its Motion.
However, such a blanket complaint cannot serve to justify issuance of a protective order.
. 11-First, to shown above (p. 9, supra. ) Applicants se ek through discovery only information to Which they are entitled. Moreove r, it is well-settled that general objections such as those ,r aised by Intervenor in this regard cannot provide the basis for a protective order. As the Appeal Board stated in Pennrylvania Power & Licht Company, et al. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units'l and 2), ALA3-613, 12 !!RC 317, 323 (1980),
general objections do not provide good cause for issuing a protective order.
C-eneral objections, such as the objection that the interrogatories...are unreasonably burdensome, oppressive, or vexatious, or that they seek information- that is as easily available to the interrogating as to the interrogated party, or that they would cause annoyance, expense or oppression to the ob je cting party without serving any cureose relevant to the action...are insufficient. [4A Moore's Federal Practico (1982 ed.), 533.27 at pp.33-164 through 3 3-167. )
Palmetto Alliance's objections to Ae.olicants' discove rv. requests almost trac % vertatim the type of general objection the Appeal Board in Susquehanna criticiced. See also Pilerim, supra, LSP-75-30, 1 NRC at 579.
Second, Applicants' discovery requests do nothing more than seek to determine the dimensions of and bases for Intervenor's i contentions. Specifically, they are designed to enable Applicants to understand how Palmetto Alliance defines the material terms in its contentions; what the areas of safety concern (if any) raised by Palmetto Alliance encompass; What actions (if any) Applicants should take according to Intervenor to assure the safe operation of Catawba; and What the te chnical bases (if any) for Palmetto Alliance's position are. If it is
.. _ _ . , - - - . y - - . _ , . _ . _ . , _ _ - - -
" unduly burdensomes" for Palmetto Alliance to supply this information, then Applicants suggest that Palmetto Alliance narrow the scope of its allegations so that discovery no longer presents such difficulties. See Suscuehanna, suora, A1AB-613, 12 NRC at 330-35.
III. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, Applicants urge that the Board issue an order denying Palmetto Alliance 's Motion for a Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted, 0,l4DAu s
f I e ht Avam I n -- ' wn J. biichael McGarry , IIJ f Anne W. Cottingham DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
(202) 857-9833 William L. Porter Albert V. Carr, Jr.
Ellen T. Ruff DUKE POWER COMPANY P.O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.
Decerber 20, 1982
___m- - _ _ _ _ . _