Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 1 of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

Plaintiff
No. 98- 126 C

(Senior Judge Merow)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.

YANKEE

ATOMIC' S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S AUGUST 25 , 2003 ORDER I

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (" Yankee Atomic ) respectfully requests the Court'

assistance to obtain access to the following documents: (a) two documents produced pursuant to
the Court' s August 25 , 2003 Order (" Order ) related to Greater- Than- Class- C (GTCC) waste

issues that are excessively redacted , and (b) one document the government withheld but for
which it has failed to assert any privilege claim.

Yankee Atomic made numerous attempts to resolve its concerns over the
documents , including excessive redactions , without the Court' s intervention. On November 12
2003 , Yankee Atomic s counsel requested the government to make a complete and full

production of documents in compliance with the Order , including reconsideration of the

I This Motion should also be deemed applicable to

No. 98- 154C,

and

Connecticut Yankee v. United States Case Maine Yankee v. United States No. 98- 474C.

2 A list of the documents that Yankee Atomic seeks is set forth in the table attached as Exhibit A.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 2 of 33

excessive redactions.

See

Ex. B at '11'111

6. The government failed to respond to the

November 12 ,
encourage a response.

2003 letter. Yankee Atomic sent another letter on December 16 , 2003 , to
See

Ex. C. The government did

not respond. Yankee Atomic wrote the

government again on February 2
Atomic s inquiry.

2004.

See

Ex. D. Once more , the government ignored Yankee

Finally, on March 3 , 2004 , one of the counsel for the government , Kevin Crawford

advised one of the counsel for Yankee Atomic , Peter Skalaban , that the government was

planning to respond , in the near future , to the various concerns raised in plaintiffs ' November 12

2004 letter. However, Mr. Crawford indicated that the government would not be withdrawing
any (or many) of the redactions. See

Ex. E. Yankee Atomic requested the government to

provide any information it planned to produce by March 9 2004. However, the government still has not provided its formal response to our November 12 , 2003 letter 3 Given the passage of
time , the government's delay in responding, and the government's indication that it will not

withdraw the excessive redactions , it is clear that the Court' s assistance is needed.
The Court ordered the government to produce documents related to Greater- Than-

Class- C (GTCC) waste issues pursuant to its August 25 , 2003 Order (" Order ) after rejecting the

government's " deliberative process " privilege claims , which the government had used to
withhold a large quantity of documents relevant to GTCC waste issues. See

Order at 2- 3.

The

Court allowed the government to produce certain documents with redactions for the sole purpose
of protecting attorney- client privileged information
legal advice " and " legal

3 The November 12 2003 letter raises and details a number of other concerns regarding the government's document production pursuant to the Court' s August 25 , 2003 Order , which have not been raised in this motion. For instance , the government produced illegible copies of certain documents and Yankee Atomic requested that better copies be produced. See Ex. B. at '11 5. Yankee Atomic hopes the other concerns can be resolved without the Court' s intervention.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 3 of 33

communications.

Id.

at 3. Pursuant to the Order , the government produced documents on

September 30 2003. The government ,

however , gutted some ofthis evidence with extensive

redactions. Given the context within which the redactions were made , it is highly doubtful that
they were limited to attorney-client privileged information as the Court' s Order contemplated. Evidence related to GTCC waste is relevant to one of the government' s primary
contentions in this case. Namely, the government is attempting to prove a reduction to Yankee

Atomic s damages under its theory that DOE would not have taken GTCC waste from the sites

of shutdown reactors (notwithstanding its undisputed statutory obligation to do so) even if DOE
had otherwise removed all of the other highly radioactive waste from shutdown reactors.
Throughout pre- trial discovery, the government has continuously erected roadblocks and resisted

full and complete discovery into the GTCC waste issues. The government's excessive redactions
in this instance fit this pattern.

Although only the government presently knows what is behind the redactions , an
examination of the context of the redactions strongly suggests that they are overreaching.

Accordingly, as discussed further below , Yankee Atomic respectfully requests the Court to
review these documents in camera

to confirm whether the redactions are excessive-as the

context strongly suggests:

On December 13 , 2001 ,
and high- level

Lake Barrett , then acting director of the DOE spent fuel

waste disposal program , wrote to Jessie Roberson, the Assistant Secretary for the

Office of Environmental Management , seeking the latter s assistance in drafting a response letter

to Governor King of Maine addressing GTCC waste storage and disposal. The document see
Ex. F (HQR 166- 0032), notes that the "NRC has strongly objected to the absence of a proposed

path forward" for DOE' s storage or disposal of GTCC waste.

Id.

However , the rest of the letter

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 4 of 33

amplifying this comment is completely excised. The letter does not appear to be privileged
despite the government's claim in its privilege log that the document " contains substance of
communications between OCRWM and DOE- OGC regarding proposed response.
See

Ex. G

(relevant privilege entry from the government's January 31 , 2003 privilege log). Neither Mr.

Bennett nor Mr. Roberson , the individuals who actually sent and received the document, are

attorneys. The only attorney listed on the document, Lee Otis , is in the " " section , which is
insufficient by itself to sustain the assertion of attorney-client privilege. 4 Moreover , no part of

the unredacted text of the document refers to legal advice , or lawyers , or anything remotely legal

in nature. Thus , it is unlikely that the redacted portion of the document falls within the attorneyclient privilege.

It seems more likely that the government, in an attempt to continue to hide this redacted
rnaterial from the plaintiffs and the Court , has simply substituted the attorney- client privilege for

the deliberative process privilege now that the Court has rejected the government' s previous
reliance on deliberative process to shield this same material. Simple in camera

review of this

one page document will confirm whether the government' s reliance on its fallback attorney-

client privilege argument is unsupported, as the unredacted context plainly suggests.

The Court ordered the government to produce an internal NRC e-mail discussing
DOE' s response to the letter from Governor King of Maine regarding DOE' s responsibility to
take GTCC waste. See

Ex. H (NRCO04- 0243). The government , however , gutted this evidence

with another extensive redaction. It is highly doubtful that the redaction covers or is limited to

4 As articulated in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Department of Energy,

102 F.R.D. 1

10 (N.

1983),

" The document does not come within the attorney- client privilege merely by being

forwarded to or routed through the (DOE' s) counsel's office. " The document must be a

communication. . . that was made by a client to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services. In re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc. 203 F.3d 800 , 805 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 5 of 33

attorney-client privileged information. This e-mail was circulated to nine different NRC
employees , only one of whom was a lawyer , Neil Jensen.
See

Ex. I (relevant privilege log entry

from the government's January 31 , 2003 privilege log). The mere identification of a lawyer as

one of several recipients is not by itself sufficient to invoke the attorney- client privilege. 5 Like
the previous document , the unredacted portions of the document do not refer to legal advice , or
lawyers , or anything remotely legal in nature. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the redacted

portion of this document falls within the attorney- client privilege. Again , in
this one-page document will resolve the privilege issue.

camera

review of

The government also has redacted one document i.e. HQR236- 0030
without asserting any privilege to substantiate the redactions. See Ex. J.

to - 0032

This document is a

chart containing information related to the GTCC waste issue. However , information located in
the chart' s

" Associated Funding,

FTE' " and " Transfer" columns has been redacted.

See

Ex.

1. The government has never claimed a privilege for these redactions nor has the government

ever entered this document in any of its privilege logs. Thus , given these failures , the Court
should order the government to produce the document in un-redacted form.
To the extent necessary, in camera

review is an appropriate method for resolving
v.

privilege disputes.

See

Dorf

Stanton Comm. , Inc.

Molson Breweries 100 F. 3d 919

923- 24 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here , Yankee Atomic has narrowly challenged only a few documents

and redactions , rnaking in

camera

review particularly feasible and efficient. Accordingly, the
camera

Court should review this limited set of documents in

to determine whether the withheld

evidence is , in fact , privileged. Ifit is not privileged , as the unredacted portions of these

Mobil Oil, supra

note 4,

102 F.

RD. at 9-

10;

Spalding Sports ,

supra

note 4

203 F.3d at 80S.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 6 of 33

documents strongly suggest, the Court should order the government to produce these three
documents in redacted form.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above , Yankee Atomic respectfully requests the Court to order

the government to produce the documents listed in Exhibit A in their entirety and without
redactions as expeditiously as possible.

Respectfully submitted

s/Jerrv Stouck
Date: March 12

2004

JERRY STOUCK Spriggs & Hollingsworth 1350 I Street , N. , Ninth Floor Washington , D. C. 20005 (202) 898- 5800 (phone) (202) 682- 1639 (fax)
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

Of Counsel:

Robert L. Shapiro
Peter J. Skalaban

Vivek K. Hatti SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 7 of 33

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 8 of 33

EXIDBIT A
Yankee Atomic requests the Court to receive the following documents in their entirety
and without any redactions for in camera

review to determine the propriety of the government's

redactions:

BATES NO.
HQR166- 0032

DOCUMENT TYPE
Informal Nole

FROM
Lake H. Barrett
Jessie H.

CC" RECIPIENTS
Robert Card
Lee Otis

DATE
December 13,

Roberson
HQR236- 0030 to 0032
NRCO04- 0243

2001
September 4

Chart

Unknown

N/A

N/A

2002

Mail

lames Kennedy

CW. (BiIl)
Reamer Neil Jensen James Kennedy, M. Wayne Hodges Michael Webb Thomas Essig

E. William Brach John Greeves Spiros Droggitis

October 22

2001

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 9 of 33

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 10 of 33

Sprigg&iollingsworth

1350 I Street , NW Washington , DC 20005
tel. 202. 898. 5800 fax 202. 682. 1639 www. spriggs. com

Peter J. Skalaban , Jr. 202. 898. 5821 pskalabanWspriggs. com

November 12 , 2003

Via facsimile and mail
Marian E. Sullivan

Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division United States Department of Justice Eighth Floor Mailroom 1100 L Street , N. Washington , D. C. 20530
Re:
Dear Marian:

Yankee Atomic v. U. S.. Connecticut Yankee v. U. S.. Maine Yankee v. U.

This letter concerns certain document discovery matters. First , we have completed our

review of the previously withheld documents the government produced on September 30, 2003 as required by the Court' s August 25 , 2003 Order compelling production. We have several questions and concerns regarding the government's production, which are enumerated below.
The document at Bates no. HQR 251- 0016- 79 are weekly status reports from Robert Campbell to his supervisor. The government has extensively redacted the portions of the status reports relating to GTCC waste matters. Although the Court' s Order permitted the government to redact descriptions of " legal discussions" with DOE counsel that are contained in these reports , it is very surprising that so much of these reports purportedly describes legal discussions with counsel. Please re-review this document and (1) produce all information that does not describe legal discussions with counselor (2) confirm that all of these redactions are strictly limited to privileged , legal discussions with counsel.
In addition , there are no Campbell status reports from early November 2001 to HQR 251- 0080 & HQR 251- 0053. Please produce or explain why no See late January 2002. such reports were produced.

1.

The document at Bates no. NRC 004- 0243 is extensively redacted. This was a widely- circulated e-mail within NRC. Although the Court' s Order permitted the government to redact the " description of legal advice " from NRC counsel , the government' s redaction was
substantial. Please re-review this document and (1) produce all information that does not

2. 3.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Sprigg &;'ollingsworth

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 11 of 33

Marian E. Sullivan
November 12 , 2003 Page 2 of 3

constitute a description of legal advice provided by NRC counselor (2) confirm that the redaction is strictly limited to the description of legal advice provided by NRC- OGc.

document again contains a heavy redaction. Please re-review this document and (1) produce all

4.

HQR 166- 0032 is a document between Lake Barrett and Jessie Roberson. The

information that does not constitute the " substance of legal communications " between DOE and 8/25/03 See its counselor (2) confirm that the redaction is strictly limited to such material. Order , at 3.

The following documents contain marginalia that are illegible: HQR 167- 009295; HQR 167- 0113; and HQR 170- 0060- 73. The copy of the document at HQR 236- 0030- 32 is also illegible in parts. Please provide fully legible copies of these documents.
The government produced a document at HQR 236- 0030- 32 that relates to GTCC waste. The government's prior , January 31 , 2003 privilege log makes no claim of privilege over this document. However , the document is heavily redacted. Please promptly produce an unredacted copy of the document.

5.

6.

In addition, no other information related to this document was produced , and no other documents with the source code/Bates prefix HQR 236 were produced. Further , the (see Sullivan 4/2/03 Itr. to Shapiro) does not identify the original government's source log custodian of this document. Please produce all documents related to this document or explain why they have not been produced. Please also identifY the source of this document, and , if there are other responsive documents from this source , please promptly provide them.
The government has produced numerous copies of a draft letter from the Bates no. NRC 004- 0294) and copies of a draft memorandum (e. (e. Bates no. HQR 252- 0029). If any to the Secretary discussing the letter to Governor King of these documents were produced from the files of the Secretary s Office , please identify those documents. If no copies of these documents came from the files of the Secretary and/or his staff then please search those files and produce the versions of these documents (if any) that were transmitted to the Secretary or his staff and any related documentation.
Secretary to Governor King

7.

Second, the government has agreed to release copies of Yankee Utilities ' pretrial exhibits nos. 1723 and 1724 , which the government previously had " clawed- back. See Sullivan 9/39/03 ltr. to Skalaban. Please provide us electronic copies of these two documents.

Third, based on our preliminary review of the government' s privilege log dated October 2003 , we have the following preliminary requests:
Please provide information on the individuals named " G. Gardner" and " Callier " who appear on the government' s log, including who they worked for and their job responsibilities.

1.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Sprigg &ollingsworth

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 12 of 33

Marian E. Sullivan November 12 2003 Page 3 of3

The e-mail at HQR 258- 0490 (p. 17), relating to the DCS process , was apparently not sent to any attorney. Moreover, the basis for the government's assertion of privilege over this document is confusing. Accordingly, please clarify the basis for your assertion. In addition to the extent that the document contains a description of a privileged communication with counsel , then redact that description and promptly produce the remainder of the e-mail.

2.

We appreciate your attention to these matters. Please provide a response prior to the Thanksgiving holiday so that we may timely complete any appropriate follow-up.
Sincerely,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 13 of 33

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 14 of 33
1350 I Stree~ NW Washington, DC 20005
iel. 202. 898. 5800 fax 202. 682. 1639 www. spriggs. com
Peter J. Skalaban , J' 202. 898. 5821 pskalaban(g.spriggs. com

Sprigg&iollingsworth

December 16 , 2003

Via Facsimile and mail

Marian E. Sullivan - Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division United States Department of Justice Eighth Floor Mailroom 1l0O L Street, N. Washington, D. C. 20530
Re:
Dear Marian:

Yankee Atomic v. U. S.. Connecticut Yankee v. U. ~ Maine Yankee v. U.

On November 12 2003 , Yankee Utilities sent the government a letter raising certain questions and concerns based on our review of the previously withheld documents that the Court ordered the government to produce. See August 25 , 2003 Order. The government has not yet responded, even though it has had ample time to do so.

Please promptly respond to our November 12 letter.

Sincerely,

Peter Skalaban

(b;

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 15 of 33

EXHIB IT D

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 16 of 33

Sprigg&iollingsworth

1350 I Street , NW Washington , DC 20005
reI. 202. 898. 5800 fax 202. 682. 1639 www.spriggs. com
Peter J. Skalaban , Jr.

202. 898. 5821 pskalabanWspriggs. com

February 2 , 2004

Via Facsimile and Mail
Marian E. Sullivan

Trial Attorney
Commercial Litigation Branch

Civil Division United States Department of Justice Eighth Floor Mailroom 1100 L Street , N. Washington , D. C. 20530
Re:
Dear Marian:

Yankee Atomic v. US.. Connecticut Yankee v. U. S.. Maine Yankee v. U.

As you know, the Court ordered that government to produce certain documents (related to GTCC waste) that the government had asserted were privileged and provide testimony August 25 , 2003 Order, at 4. Our review See regarding the subject matter of those documents. of those documents identified several apparent deficiencies in the government's document production. We requested information from the government regarding these document issues on Skalaban 11/12/03 ltr. to Sullivan. The government did not respond. See November 11 2003. On December 16 , 2003, we again wrote the government to request a response to our questions. See Skalaban 12/16/03 Itr. to Sullivan. However, the government still has not responded.

The government has had ample time to research our questions and provide a response even considering the government' s ongoing work to complete its pretrial' submissions. Yankee Utilities believe that it is important to resolve these GTCC waste document issues before proceeding with the conclusion of the depositions of government witnesses (regarding GTCC
waste) that the Court has directed the government to provide.

see

We request that the government provide the information that Yankee Utilities requested Skalaban 11/12/03 Itr. to Sullivan, as soon as possible and not later than five business days after the government makes its final pretrial submissions. If the government continues to not cooperate regarding this discovery matter, then Yankee Utilities may be forced to raise this

matter with the Court.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 17 of 33

Sprigg &:a

lIin gs

worth

Marian E. Sullivan
February 2 ,

2004

Page 2 of2

Please me contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,

Peter Skalaban

~ Skt--

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 18 of 33

EXHIBIT E

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 19 of 33

Sprigg&iollingsworth

1350 I Streer , NW Washington , DC 20005
tel. 202. 898. 5800 fax 202. 682. 1639 www. spriggs. com

March 4, 2004

Peter J. Skalaban , Jr. 202. 898.5821 pskalabanWspriggs. com

Kevin B. Crawford , Esq. S. Department of Justice Civil Division- Commercial Litigation Branch 1100 L Street , N. Washington , D. C. 20530
Re:
Dear Kevin:

Yankee Atomic

v.

US. , Connecticut Yankee v. Us. , Maine Yankee

v.

Us.

By letter dated November 12 2003 , Yankee Utilities made several requests for documents and information arising from our concern that the government's compliance with the Court' s Order of August 25 , 2003 (compelIing GTCC waste-related documents) was inadequate and from other related discovery matters. One of the issues raised in our November letter is that the government made very extensive redactions to the evidence that the Court ordered the government to produce. After receiving no response from the government to our letter, we wrote the government again on December 16 , 2003 and on February 2 , 2004 , to encourage the government's cooperation.

I appreciate the courtesy of your call yesterday to advise me of the status of the government' s response. It is my understanding that the government plans to provide a formal response to our November 12 letter in the near future. It is also my understanding that while the government plans to produce some additional documents, the government does not plan to withdraw any (or many) of the redactions to the documents that were compelled. In that event, we have no choice but to take the excessive review of some or all of the redacted material. in camera redaction issue to the Court and seek Please provide your substantive response and all additional material you plan to produce as soon as ppssible. In view of the long delay since the Court' s August 25 Order and the upcoming depositions and trial , we will not wait beyond March 9 , 2004 to file our motion.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

fb~

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 20 of 33

EXHIBIT F

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 21 of 33
\;-1M./

December 13, 2001

INFORMAL NOTE

TO:
FROM

Jessie H. Roberson Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management
Lake H. Banett , Acting Director
/Jr/ rr:.

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

SUB T:

Letter 10 the Secn:tary from Govemor King of the State of Maine

I am requesting your assistance in drafting a response to Governor King s request to the Secretary that he reconsider providing centralized interim storage for greater-than-dass-C (GTCC) waste. On July 6 2001 , in response to a letter from five New England Governors, the 5ecretaiy wrote Governor King and the other govemors stating that DOE has no current plans to provide for such storage. In that letter, the Secretary also stated that. subject to the availability of funds. DOE plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in fiscal year 2002 to analyze
the alternatives for disposal of GTCC waste. with the intent of selecting a pathway for this waste

in a Record of Decision. This ErS was to be prepared by your office. Because of your decision not to go forward with this ErS, I agreed that RW would prepare the response to Governor King latest letter.
My office prepared the attached draft response, which reiterates DOE' s position that it does not currently have plans to provide for interim storage of GTTC waste from commercial power reactors and that it is safe where it is now. However, it does not address the potential EIS or any .to. was. e. soora.g:e. o.r.sp.o.s, Th al e. as, tto.on:yo.. ected p.a. o.rw. . oor. th f ard f gI b' .

ssmg: addre' GTTC t
rwar. cL.

di

NRC h

the' ab" se' nee' o. fa. p. roo po.. sed. 0 a, th fo.

I have asked Shirley Davis on my staff to arrange a meeting for US on this su ~ect m e very near future. In the meantime. please feel free to call me at 6-6842.

Attachment
cc:

RobertCard,
Lee Otis , GC-

HQR166 0032

HQRI66 0032

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 22 of 33

EXHIBIT G

PR.IVILEGE LOG FOR DOCUMENTS CLAWED- BACK AFTER JULY 5, 2002, AND FOR DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO JUNE 12 , 2002, PRODUCTION

REQUESTS

DOCNO
'XXXXJX:NXX

ENDNO
DATE

AUTHOR

ADDRESSEE
SECRETARY
MEM

DOCTYPE
AN UNDATED DRAFT RESPONSE FROM SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO OCTOBER 1 , 2001 LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING TO SECRETARY ABRAHAM; ATTACHED TO DRAFT RESPONSE ARE ONE PAGE CONCURRENCE SHEET AND TWO COPIES OF DRAFT MEMORANDUM FROM L. BARRETT, DOE- OCRWM , TO THE SECRETARY REGARDING PROPOSED RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 1, 2001 LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING; DOCUMENTS PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SECRETARY REGARDING PROPOSED RESPONSE , REVEAL THE DELIBERATIONS OF DOE REGARDING HOW TO RESPOND TO GOVERNOR KING' S LETTER AND FORM PART OF THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS.

DESCRIPTION

PRIVILEGE

HQR1660025
ABRAHAM

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

HQR1660031

BARRETT, L; DOE-

Document 775

HQR1660032
MEM

HQR1660045
BARRETT, L; DOE-

2001/12/13

ROBERSON , J; DOEcc; CARD, R; DOEOTIS, DOE- OGC

DP,

Filed 03/12/2004

INFORMAL MEMORANDUM FROM L. BARRETT, OCRWM, TO J. ROBERSON, DOE, REGARDING DRAFT RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 1, 2001 LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING, MAINE; MEMORANDUM CONTAINS SUBSTANCE OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OCRWM AND DOE- OGC REGARDING PROPOSED RESPONSE; MEMORANDUM ALSO REVEALS THE DELIBERATIONS OF DOE REGARDING HOW TO RESPOND TO GOVERNOR KING' S LETTER AND FORMS PART OF THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS. ATTACHED TO THE MEMORANDUM ARE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED ELSEWHERE OR ARE LISTED IN THE PRIVILEGE LO : MEMO ~NDUM

Page 23 of 33

FROM M. URIE DOE- OGC TO D.

January 31, 2003

32-

);

PRIVILEGE LOG FOR DOCUMENTS CLAWED- BACK AFTER JULY 5 , 2002, AND FOR DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO JUNE t2, 2002, PRODUCTION REQUESTS

DOCNO
DATE

ENDNO
AUTHOR

ADDRESSEE
DOCTYPE

DESCRIPTION
ZABRANSKY AND S. KLEIN; AN UNDATED DRAFT RESPONSE FROM SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO GOVERNOR KING; OCTOBER t, 2001 LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING TO SECRETARY ABRAHAM; JULY 5 , 2001

PRIVILEGE

LETTERFROM SECRETARY
ABRAHAM TO GOVERNOR KING; CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING SHEET; MARCH 28, 2001 LETTER TO SECRETARY ABRAHAM FROM GOVERNORS ROWLAND (CT. CELLUCCI (MA.), SHAHEEN (N.
DEAN

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

(VT.

TWO VERSIONS OF

DRAFT MEMORANDUM FROM L. BARRETT , DOE- OCRWM, TO THE SECRETARY REGARDING PROPOSED

RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 1 , 2001
LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING MAINE. AC ATTORNEYS: M. URIE , L. OTIS

Document 775

(DOE- OGC).

HQR1570001
NONE GIVEN
NONE GIVEN

HQR1670010

20020524

OTH

OCRWM CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING SYSTEM LOG; TRACKING DOE RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 1, 2001 LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING OF MAINE; DOCUMENT REVEALS DOE' S DELIBERATIVE PROCESS IN DECIDING HOW TO RESPOND TO GOVERNOR KING' S LETTER.
OTH

Filed 03/12/2004

HQR1670011

HQR1670020
NONE GIVEN

20020814

NONE GIVEN

OCRWM CORRESPONDENCE
TRACKING SYSTEM LOG; TRACKING DOE RESPONSE TO OCTOBER t 2001 LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING OF MAINE;'DOCUMENT REVEALS DOE' S DELIBERATIVE PROCESS IN DECIDING HOW TO RESPOND TO GOVERNOR KING' S LETTER.

Page 24 of 33

January 31, 2003

33-

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 25 of 33

::q

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 26 of 33
Page 1

James Kennedy - Actlon.. Coordlnale responses 10 Leners from Governor King of MaIne re Maine YanKee

Place: 0The purpose of

Dam: Time: Subject: Aclion--

From: To: C. W. (Bill) Reame~ E. Neil Jensen: James Kennedy; M. Wayne Hodges: Michael Webb: Thomas Essig
James Kennedy

10~VO1

2:30PM - 3:00PM Coordinate responses to Letters from Govemor King or Maine re Maine Vankee

8-4

the meeting is 10 coordinate DOE and NRC responses 10 two recent letters

from Maine of Maine sent DOE a letter on October 1 urging them to remove GTCC and SNF from Maine Yankee no later than 2005, when MY is finished decommissioning. He also sent a letter to us on October 4 asking us to require addillonal security measures at MY alter regarding Maine Yankee. Governor King

decommissioning, update our waste confidence AepOr1

some urgency, in light.olthe terrorist attacks. NAA is responding to the letter to us.

, and push DOE to remove the materials with

DOE staff (Rob CampbelQ has asked for informal commenls on their dralt response to Governor King. since they are stating NAC posnions on snf and glee storage.

At our meeting, we need 10 decide if we wish to provide any comments to DOE on their dralt. and il so,
what they will be, and what lur1her coordination in NAC might be needed.

Jim

cc:

E. William Brach; John Greeves; Spiros Droggnis

NRCO04 0243

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 27 of 33

EXHIBIT I

PRIVILEGE LOG FOR DOCUMENTS CLAWED- BACK AFTER JULY 5 2002, AND FOR DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO JUNE 12, 2002 , PRODUCTION

REQUESTS

DOCNO
DATE

ENDNO

AUTHOR

ADDRESSEE
KING , A;

DOCTYPE

DESCRIPTION

PRIVILEGE

NRCO040217
GOVERNOR OF
MAINE

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

NRCO040219
MESERVE , R. NRC

2001/10/29

COR

DRAFT OF LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN MESERVE TO GOVERNOR KING OF MAINE IN RESPONSE TO GOVERNOR KING' S OCTOBER 4, 2001, LETTER; DOCUMENT CONTAINS MARGINALIA WITH COMMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING THE DRAFT RESPONSE, BASED UPON REVIEW OF RESPONSE FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.

NRCO040243

NRCO040243
KENNEDY , J; NRC

20011022
REAMER , C. NRC

COR , OTH

AC,

Document 775

JENSEN, E.

MAIL DESCRIBING PROPOSED RESPONSES FROM DOE AND NRC TO OCTOBER 1, 2001 LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING; E- MAIL CONTAINS DESCRIPTION OF LEGAL ADVICE PROVIDED BY NRC- OGC, BASED UPON REVIEW OF PROPOSED RESPONSE FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.

NRC- OGC KENNEDY, J: NRC HODGES , M. NRC WEBB , M; NRC ESSIG, T; NRC cc: BRACH , EW. NRC GREEVES , J; NRC DROGGITIS, S; NRC
2001XXXX
ABRAHAM, S;
KlNG,

AC ATTORNEY: N. JENSEN (NRC- OGC).

NRCO040244
SECRETARY OF DOE

NRCO040244

COR

Filed 03/12/2004

GOVERNOR OF
MAINE

Page 28 of 33

AN UNDATED DRAFT RESPONSE FROM SECRETARY ABRAHAM TO OCTOBER 1, 2001 LETTER FROM GOVERNOR KING TO SECRETARY ABRAHAM PROVIDED TO J. KENNEDY , NRC, FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; DOCUMENT CONTAINS MARGINALIA WRITTEN BY MR. KENNEDY, REVEALS THE DELIBERATIONS OF DOE REGARDING TO HOW RESPOND TO GOVERNOR KING' S LETTER AND FORMS PARr OF

January 31, 2003

86.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 29 of 33

tIj

-.: ~,
;

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

TransrerresponSlbll1ty forlhe Ireitmenl.s1orage

, and.

dlsppasal or newly generated westelo the generator.!

'1;:

Page 30 of 33

:r ~

::0 a W UJ C) a

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 31 of 33

':': :

~.

'" I

:I: ~ D '" ;C 0 '" 0

en -

'" ...

~ '" '" ~
,,,

. )~.

,.
~.

!!1

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

:i

Document 775

LonQ..!j;nn SteWAnlshi Grand Junction)

Filed 03/12/2004
0I

Page 32 of 33

D a, ::00 0 '" '" w

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 775

Filed 03/12/2004

Page 33 of 33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing " Yankee Atomic s Motion To Compel
Production Of Documents Pursuant To The Court' s August 25 , 2003 Order " to be served

electronically through the Court of Federal Claims Electronic Filing Systern on March 12 , 2004
upon the following:

Harold D. Lester , Jr. Assistant Director Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division

US. Department ofJustice
Classification Unit, Eighth Floor 1100 L Street , N. Washington , D. C. 20530 Tel. (202) 307- 6288 Fax (202) 307- 2503
Attorney for the United States

s/Jerrv Stouc Jerry Stouck