ML19350C670
| ML19350C670 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1981 |
| From: | Stamiris B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8104060576 | |
| Download: ML19350C670 (4) | |
Text
..-
... _ _. =
"+
~
000R ORIGINAll\\TEDcui...c:pw.:enyI-g RE!
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION In the matter of Do cket No s. 50-329 OV CL
'C.P.Co. Midland Plant 50-330 OM OL
' Mtnita 1&2 P -. ; '.x 9/. -.,
/,
ap.
h fas f.<:; N, -'.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC 3AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.),-y coc w t*
m.t.;ia,. [Lf v
II.
usn*.--
t n.
_2 [,' ' U $ ?SS N 7. ;
a/2s/81 APR 11981 P.
\\\\
%co+,8 a'*'
1 INTERVENOR RESPONSE TO C.P.Co. 2/27/81 REPLY 9'
Ctfice of t5e secretan hse #,a AND MOTION TO CO.VPELL RESPONSE 70 QUESTIONS Sb - 5e OF 1/26/81
- DCget, 3
cc e
~,.- m. x."
'D, e
-4 PERTAINING TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS
- 2. Response to oest. requests is considered satisfactory. However, applicant's -
Sinterpretation thtt 31 was using the term " incomplete"to indicate that I had follow up cuestiona en this subject matter, is incorrect. At the time of ry 1/28/61 submittal, their response wJa incer plete in that "..back up docu=ent.
are, still being gathered from individuals in the 3echtel organization! as stated l
in the original (apprximately 1/19/81) reply.
l l
?. A s no new documents were produced, this response is still incomplete but will be censidered satisfaatory if the appropriate documents are produced
~
l as premised within four weeks (of 2/27/81) er non-production explainea.
However, applicant has again incorrectly stated the grounds of my objection.
I was not obje-ting to the extraneous documents produced as suggested b,f irrk att; mci 22WuZ YT'i T.?C:S D IC' 'A but to the lack of requested docunents er explanatien.thereof;
"" ~1
- * 'o l
B
- 4. I accept the claim of attorney client privilege.for thedecurent described concernin6 pe s.
4e lawsuits. In recuesting documentation regarding. "dise,ussions er censiderations of po ssible lawsuits",I was hoping to get indications ef bP.Ce.'
~
er Bechtels, own *.ssessments of responsibility for' soil settlement problemsm2
~
In that vein;I will ask instead
-- ~ ~ ~
. a) Have any confidential records been kept for purpes.e.s_of_ assigning financial responsibil*ty for soil settlement problems 7 j
S El 810.4 0 6 o SRo G
l b) Have any confidential records been kept er citations =ade of subnandard workmanship on the part of any organization (including Q.A. 1.C. a spect s) regard ing soil settlement issuest c) Eave there baen a=y discussions er eensiderations of po ssible lawsuits within C.P.Ce. mar.agement (t6 the best of your knowledge) at which an attorney
~
(
was not presenti d) If the answer to a,b,or e above is yes; please provide these documents.
If you object to producin5 such deouments; please describe the existing documents and the grounds for each objection.
- 5. Applicant's production of documents'regarding the Administration Building settlement is satisfactory. However applicant objects to answering the follow up questions en this subject en the grounds that it"is irrelevant to this ca se'.'
l Having re-studied the documents provided I have been unable to find s
satisfactory answers to these questions (as Mr. Erunner had suggested in I
our 3/17/81/ telephone conversation). Therefore I hereby move that the applicant be compelled te answer these four (Eb-Se) questions.
Iccentend that the Administration Building settlement issues are relevant l
4h'e to proceeding,as does the N.R.C. in its 78-20 I.&E. Repert pages 21 and 22:
and as this A.S.L.B. apparantly does in accepting my centention 3c in their Oct. 24,1980 ruling. The questions fall within the scope of discovery requests as set forth in 10 CFR Part 2.740(l').
PERTAINING TO INTERROGATORIES
- 1. Response is satisfactory. (le having been inadvertantly oriitted according to Er. Brunner) i 2, p!The attached letter from Mr. Brunner correctly surmarizes the compromises reached in our conversations of 3/17/81 and 3/20/81. Although I disagree with all but one of the applicantfs grounds for objecting te my cuestions:
~., -
u----..
P00R ORIGINH I will not set forth these objections as the compror.ise we have reached rakes such arguments unnecessary. In aseeptingi the applicant's objection as to burdeny I have agreed to limit my request to the specific examples set forth in : y 1/26/81 submitts1.
- 4. Although I object to applicant's misstatement of the the question I posed; ind the resultant answer to 4b; I ar. ne longer in need of an answer here.
I. had asked about hRC censultatien " prior to " the decision to preload; not concerning the decisien to preload.
Respectfully Submitted:
b/Tkb2hg
?v wir
_4S 5'/
O Cepies sent:
Judge Rechheefer A.S.L.B.
Mr. W. Paten N.R.C. Counsel Mr. James Brunner. C.P.Co. Counsel Secretary N.H.".
p
-w r-e-
.-r
,,,y
+
e LaGAL DE PARTut N1 Lawrease 8 Leee*=enes 1,s. I's.,1. e s 4 =./4.. e.de a u s. /
- r A.me L ses a An.a a sa.
O R 9ecersen n,n,s E n,eae, u.sr ~s i n a..=,. t.
Reenn J eve.,
Me e e cent seemaev t Howa
~ '
General oM6ces. 212 West M6chegan Avenue, Jack,on, MI 49201 e (517) 788 0550 Franee a seene.ne.e, J t Eruoner Leeev Damed Chries O Deween Jemes W Demees, March 20, 1981 A*a F Dee, messa F Dwffy G F Gemmenes Rechere L Mennes GeorTe F M*M Laurene M Mereesay Wevne A Konte, A4teve D McCasum Ms. Barbara Stamiris
,UME**"*
5795 North River Road L*""',", 7,
. Route 3 o-d a a===
Gregeev A Senso Freeland, Michigan 48623 us. D o a.o.
Wester 1 soft $ssere A T Udeys M5T,0
Dear Ms. Stamiris:
4,,,.,,,
Confirming our recent telephone calls on the subject of Interrogatories 2 and 3 of your 12/4/80 Discovery Request, my understanding of the Agreement which was reached is as follows:
We will attempt to respond to your questions concerning differences of recc==endations submitted by Bechtcl's Censultants, changes in recommendations by the same persons, N
or rece==endations which were not followed, limited to the a
~
specific items which you raised by way of exaraple in your Discovery Reply dated 1/26/31, and the nine suggestions ff
,0CKETED made by Dr. Hendron at his October 8,1978, site visit as USNRC documented in Tab 8 of Volume 4 to the 10 CFR 50.54 Responses.1 Apg 4
1198f >
a k W C'ef 6e %
~,,~,
In addition, you indicated that there were a few more 9 O items which you wished to be addressed, and that you would MD & Service 6
specify those items by Monday, March 23, 1981.
8g Our responses will onsider suggestions and comments as well as actual recommenda,inos.
If the above is not consistent with your understanding, please notify me as soon as possible.
Very truly yours, pg ( A
/
ames E. Brunner
.V'.
.