ML20045A653
| ML20045A653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1993 |
| From: | Lamberski J GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#293-14016 96-671-01-OLA-3, 96-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9306110161 | |
| Download: ML20045A653 (38) | |
Text
c.
9 ollo
/
j RELATED CORRESPONDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n1
'U'S -J, P 23 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ~
l In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 et al.
50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric Re: License Amendment Generating Plant, (Transfer to Southern Units 1 and 2)
Nuclear)
ASLBP No. 96-671-01-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I.
INTRODUCTION.
Georgia Power Company ("GPC") hereby responds to Intervenor Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Request for Production of Documents by GPC, dated May 4, 1993.
As briefly discussed in GPC's May 7, 1993 letter to the Licensing Board, GPC believes that Intervenor's document requests are precisely the type of broad " fishing expedition" which the Licensing Board has cautioned against.
Tr. 121-22.
As a result, GPC's responses to Intervenor's document requests state a number of objections, including I
that certain requests (1) are overbroad as requesting Mhh 9306110161 930602 PDR ADOCK 05000424 W
G PDR
e information not relevant to the Factual Bases, as hereinafter defined, (2) are oppressive, (3) are unduly burdensome, or (4) seek documents subject to the attorney-client communication privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
Many of GPC's objections stem from the fact that Intervenor's requests go far beyond the matters in controversy in this proceeding.
For example, a number of Intervenor's requests seek documents that refer or re' ate to any matter that was ever raised in the "2.206 petition,"
defined by Intervenor as any petition or request for relief ever filed by Intervenor, by Marvin B.
Hobby, by the National Whistleblower Center, or by counsel for any of them.
Such requests lack reasonable bounds and are, therefore, overbroad, oppressive, and unduly burdensome and expensive.
In an attempt to supply reasonable bounds to Intervenor's requests, GPC has interpreted Intervenor's requests for documents as addressing those factual bases plead with reasonable specificity in the Petition and Amended Petition, and GPC's responses are so limited.
GPC believes that this approach is consistent with the appropriate scope of the proceeding, which should be limited to Intervenor's allegations that (1) during 1988-90 GPC illegally transferred the operating licenses for Plant Vogtle, and (2) GPC officials conspired to and knowingly submitted material false statements to the NRC with respect to the number of diesel starts reported in GPC's LER 1 06, dated April 19, 1990 (collectively referred to herein as the " Factual Bases").
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, GPC is making available to Intervenor documents related to the Factual Bases which GPC has identified on the basis of a reasonable inquiry.
Because this production, even when bounded to the Factual Bases, is estimated to exceed 60,000 pages, GPC will make these documents available to Intervenor at the Troutman Sanders Records Center, 1300 Logan Circle, Atlanta (the "GPC Records Center"), at a time which is mutually convenient to GPC and Intervenor.
Copies of any of such documents may be obtained by Intervenor by either (1) bringing its own copying machine and make its own copies, or (2) identifying those documents to GPC which it would like GPC to copy for i
Intervenor, the cost of which Intervenor will be required to reimburse to GPC upon delivery of the copies.
General Obiections.
As a general matter, GPC objects to Intervenor's definition of "GPC," "you," and "your," and consequently to )
l
s requests for documents of "GPC" or "you" as defined by Intervenor.
Intervenor defines these terms as including not only GPC but The Southern Company, Southern Nuclear, Southern Company Services, all minority owners of Plant Vogtle and all agents, employees, etc. of the foregoing.
As a result, Intervenor would have GPC conduct an investigation as to every employee, agent or representative of each of these companies.
Such an investigation, with respect to each of Intervenor's document requests, is unduly burdensome and expensive as well as overbroad given the subject matter of the Factual Bases.
Without waiving this objection, GPC has endeavored to respond to Intervenor's document requests by making a reasonable inquiry of those individuals who GPC believes have documents related to the Factual Bases.
GPC further objects to the identification of "each and every document referring or relating to" the subject of Intervenor's document requests.
Given the nature of Intervenor's allegations, an investigation of such documents within the custody or control of GPC would be oppressive and unduly burdensome.
Again, without waiving this objection, GPC has endeavored to respond by identifying, after a reasonable inquiry, those documents which appear relevant to the Factual Bases.
-4 i
Also, GPC generally objects to the identification, or disclosure, of those documents which are subject-to the attorney work product doctrine or the attorney-client communication privilege.
GPC has been defending actions initiated by Intervenor since mid-1990.
In addition to this proceeding, such actions include (1) NRC inspections and an NRC Office of Investigations ("OI") investigation of those allegations lodged by Intervenor in the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition related to the Factual Bases, (2) three separate actions before the Department of Labor, (3) an investigation by the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), and (4) an inquiry by a Congressional Subcommittee.
GPC's legal counsel has been heavily involved in GPC's defense of these actions and, as a result, has generated a large number of documents in preparation of such defenses.
It would be oppressive and unduly burdensome and expensive for GPC to identify each and every one of such documents which are subject to either or both of (1) the attorney work product doctrine (i.e., they were prepared by legal counsel in anticipation of litigation and their disclosure would reveal the mental impressions of legal counsel), or (2) the attorney-client communication privilege (i.e.,
communications from GPC to its legal counsel made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and counsel).
Finally, GPC objects to Intervenor's Instruction II.a concerning supplementation of responses to document requests.
GPC shall supplement its responses to Intervenor's document requests in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(e).
II.
DEFINITIONS.
A.
As used in these responses, the terms "Intervenor",
"you," or "your" and any synonym thereof and derivative therefrom refers to Intervenor Allen L. Mosbaugh and counsel for Intervenor and all their. respective agents, employees and representatives.
B.
As used herein, the term "NRC" means the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency of the Federal Government.
C.
As used herein, the terp " Petition" means the Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing, dated October 22, 1992, filed by Intervenor in this proceeding.
D.
As used herein, the term " Amended Petition" means the Amendments to Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing, dated December 9, 1992, filed by Intervenor in this proceeding.
E.
As used herein, the term "GPC" means the Georgia Power Company, a subsidiary of The Southern Company..- -
~
F.
As used herein, the term " Southern Nuclear" means the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., a subsidiary of The Southern Company.
G.
As used herein, the term "SONOPCO project" means the consolidation of GPC, Alabama Power Company and Southern Company Services, Inc. personnel in Birmingham, Alabama between November 1988 and January 1991 for the management and support of the Southern system nuclear facilities.
H.
As used herein, the term " Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition" means the petition filed by the Intervenor and Mr. Marvin B.
Hobby with the NRC relating to allegations of violations by GPC of NRC requirements, dated September 11, 1990, as supplemented by letters from Intervenor and Mr. Hobby to the NRC, dated September 21, 1990, October 1, 1990 and July 8, 1991.
l
. ~.
.. =.
III. GPC RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC DOCUMENT REQUESTS.1/
1.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks any documents related to any matter raised in the "2.206 petition," as defined by Intervenor.
Without waiving these objections, documents responsive to this request, which are identified in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsections b(3), b(7), b(8) and b(9), are i
available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
GPC has already provided to Intervenor GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
2.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly
{
burdensome to the extent that it seeks any documents related
[
i to any NRC investigation, inspection or inquiry since 1988 I
concerning Plant Vogtle, Southern Nuclear or the SONOPCO Project.
GPC observes, for example, that there have been a j
large number of NRC inspections conducted at Plant Vogtle, f
i I
since those units received their operating licenses, covering virtually all aspects of the subject matter within 5
i i
1/ GPC's responses are numbered to correspond to the numbers of the document requests in Intervenor's First Request for
}
Production of Documents by Georgia Power Company, dated May 4, i
1993. i i
i the jurisdiction of the NRC.
Without waiving this objection, documents responsive to this request, which are identified in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsections b(3), b(7),
b(8) and b(9), and Section III.12 (item 13), are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
GPC has already provided to Intervenor GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
3.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad to the extent that it seeks documents concerning any matter related to Plant Vogtle, or of GPC, Southern Nuclear, The Southern Company, Southern Conpany Services, Alabama Power Company, the co-owners of Plant Vogtle, or any of the employees or representatives of any of them.
With respect to matters related to the Factual Bases, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are included among the documents which GPC is producing in response to Request No. 35 and Request No. 42 with respect to GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d, with the excepti6n of a document provided to GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in
_~
b GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
4.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad to the extent that it seeks documents related to any matter inspected by the NRC during the Operational Safety Inspection conducted at Plant Vogtle from August 6-17, 1990.
Such inspection covered a number of allegations received by the NRC, only one of which was related to the Factual Bases, as well as a review of operational safety in general.
Without waiving this objection, documents responsive to this request, which are identified in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.5 (transcript of Tape No. 255)Section III.10, subsections b(3)-(9), and Section III.12 (item 13), are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
GPC has already provided to Intervenor GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
5.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks any documents related to any matter raised in the "2.206 petition," as defined by Intervenor.
Without waiving such objection, documents responsive to this request, which are identified in GPC's !
4 Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, Subsections b(5) and b(6), are available for
[
inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
GPC objects to the production of any other statements which are related to the Factual Bases on the grounds that they are subject to the attorney-client communication privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
6.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks any documents related to any matter raised in the "2.206 petition," as def2aed by Intervenor.
GPC objects to the production of any drafts of any statements which are related to the Factual Bases on the grounds that they are subject to the attorney-client communication privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
7.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad since it seeks documents totally unrelated to the Factual Bases and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving such objection, GPC notes that several tape recordings made by Intervenor contain " safeguards information," as that term is _-
4 defined in 10 C.F.R.
S 73.2, which GPC contends were improperly handled by Intervenor.
8.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it seeks documents related to Department of Labor
(" DOL") proceedings against any of GPC, Southern Nuclear, The Southern Company, Southern Company Services, Alabama Power Company, the co-owners of Plant Vogtle, or any of the employees or representatives of any of them.
To the extent that documents, which are related to the Factual Bases, were filed or exchanged by the parties in the following proceedings, Intervenor already has copies of, or access to, such documents:
a)
Hobby v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30; b)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and c)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
9.
GPC assumes that Intervenor's reference to " Yonkers and Fuchko" should be "Yunker and Fuchko."
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressive, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it seeks documents,
concerning allegations which are totally unrelated to the l
Factual Bases.
10.
GPC assumes that Intervenor's reference to " Yonkers and Fuchko" should be "Yunker and Fuchko."
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressive, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it seeks documents concerning allegations which are totally unrelated to the Factual Bases.
11.
GPC assumes that Intervenor's reference to " Yonkers or Fuchko" should be "Yunker or Fuchko."
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressive, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it seeks documents concerning allegations which are totally unrelated to the Factual Bases.
12.
GPC assumes that Intervenor's reference to
" Yonkers /Fuchko" should be "Yunker/Fuchko."
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressive, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it seeks _
documents concerning allegations which are totally unrelated to the Factual Bases.
GPC further objects to this request to the extent it, by its express terms, seeks documents which are subject to either or both of the attorney-client communication privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
13.
GPC incorporates it response to Request No.
8.
t 14.
GPC objects to this request as oppressive, overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to any allegation ever made by any person that GPC, Southern Nuclear, The Southern Company, Southern Company Services, Alabama Power Company, the co-owners of Plant Vogtle, or any of the employees or representatives of any of them, engaged in any violation of state or federal law or of NRC regulations.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents which are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
This request also seeks a document provided to GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
Without waiving these objections, documents responsive to this -
request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are those documents which GPC is.
producing in response to Document Request Nos. 33, 35 and 42.
The following documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
l a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
b.
NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in the following proceedings:
1)
Hobby v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30; 2)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and 3)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
k 15.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad to the extent that it seeks any documents related to any NRC-OI investigation, since 1987, of any of GPC, Southern Nuclear, Alabama Power Company, or any of the employees or representatives of any of them.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents which are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
This request also seeks a document provided to GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
Without waiving these objections, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are those documents which GPC is producing in response to Request No. 35 and l
Request No. 42 with respect to GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, Sections III.5.,
subsections a, c,
d and g; III.10, subsections b(3)-(9),
c(1),
d, e and h; III.12, subsection b; III.13, subsections l
l a and b; and III.15, subsection d.
The following documents l
have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
b.
NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced :n the following proceedings:
1)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and 2)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
l 1 _ _ _ _ _ - _
I t
16.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Such documents are totally unrelated to the Factual Bases.
17.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks a copy of any transcript of any tape recording made since 1988 by any of GPC, Southern Nuclear, The Southern Company, Southern Company Services, Alabama Power Company, the co-owners of Plant Vogtle, or any of the employees or representatives of any of them.
Without waiving such objection, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are those documents which GPC is producing in response to Request No. 42 with respect to GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, Sections III.2 and III.5., subsection a.
18.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to any matter raised in the "2.206 petition," as defined by Intervenor, or any allegation of Intervenor.
Without waiving such objection, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in __
l i
Atlanta and are those documents which GPC is producing in i
response to Request No. 42 with respect to GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.2,Section III.5, and Section III.10, subsections b(5) and b(6).
GPC objects to the production of any other statements which are related to the Factual Bases on the grounds that they are subject to the attorney-client j
communication privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.
i 19.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to (1) any matter raised in the "2.206 petition," as defined by Intervenor, or (2) any allegation of Intervenor.
GPC also objects to the produccion of any draft affidavits or statements which are related to the Factual Bases on the grounds that they are subject to the attorney-client communication privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
GPC further objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents which are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (e.g.,
drafts of transcripts of the tape recordings made by Intervenor).
l j.
20.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive i
and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to any allegation ever raised by Messrs. Hobby or Mosbaugh with any governmental or investigative body, the news media or local citizens' organizations.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents which are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
This request also seeks a document provided to GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
Without waiving these objections, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are those documents which GPC is producing in response to Document Request Nos. 33, 35 and 42.
The following documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
b.
NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated i
April 23, 1993.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in the following proceedings: l
1)
Hobby v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30; 2)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and 3)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
21.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to any allegation ever raised by Messrs. Hobby or Mosbaugh.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents which are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
Without waiving such objections, documents responsive to this request, which are identified in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsections b(3) and b(7), are available for I
inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
The following documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
b.
NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in the following proceedings:
1)
Hobby v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30; 2)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and 3)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and i
11.
22.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressive, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks documents which are totally unrelated to the Factual Bases.
23.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressi.e, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it seeks documents which documents are totally unrelated to the Factual Bases.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as 24.
l overbroad, oppressive and unduly burdensome.
Such request is totally unrelated to the Factual Bases and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving such objection, documents responsive to this request, which are identified in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,
Section III.53.b, are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
25.
GPC objects to this request as oppressive, overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to any communications by any personn at any time l
concerning Messrs. Hobby or Mosbaugh or the "2.206 petition," as defined by Intervenor.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents which are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
This request also seeks a document provided to GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogat ales,Section III.10, subsection d.
Without waiving these objections, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are those documents which GPC is producing in response Request Nos. 33 and 35 and Request No. 42 with respect to GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10.
The following documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
b.
NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in the following proceedings:
1)
Hobby v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30; 2)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case No._90-ERA-58; and 3)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
26.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks any documents related to any NRC-OI investigation into allegations of Messrs.
Hobby or Mosbaugh.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents which are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
This request also seeks a document provided to t
GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
Without waiving these objections, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are the same documents which GPCHis producing in response to Request No. 15.
The following k
documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
b.
NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in the following proceedings:
1)
Hobby v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30; 2)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and 3)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
27.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to any newspaper story or media inquiry concerning either Messrs. Hobby or Mosbaugh.
Without waiving this objection, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta including (1) GPC's statement in response to the NBC News story of August 9, 1992, and (2) those documents identified in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.5.c and Section III.10, subsection e. -
4 28.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressive, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it seeks documents totally unrelated to the Factual Bases.
29.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressive, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it seeks documents totally unrelated to the Factual Bases.
30.
Documents responsive to this request, consisting of Southern Nuclear Board of Directors' meeting minutes, are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
l 31.
GPC objects to this request as unduly burdensome to the i
extent that it seeks notes concerning any board of i
directors' meeting of GPC, Southern Nuclear, Alabama Power Company, Southern Company Services, or The Southern Company that in any way relate to the formation of the SONOPCO f
Project or Southern Nuclear.
GPC has already provided l
l Intervenor with copies of certain board of directors'.-
meetings of GPC, Southern Company Services and The Southern Company, attached to GPC's April 1, 1991 response to the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition.
Other documents responsive to this request, consisting of board of directors' meeting minutes of The Southern Company, Southern Company Services and Alabama Power Company, are available for inspection at the GPC records center in Atlanta.
32.
GPC has already provided Intervenor with a copy of a board of directors' meeting of The Southern Company, as well as other documents related to such meeting, attached to GPC's April 1,
1991 response to the Hobby /Mosbaugh Petition.
Other documents responsive to this request are those documents being produced in response to Request No. 31.
33.
The following documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
b.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in Hobby v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30.
Other documents responsive to this request, which are those documents being produced by GPC in response to Request Nos....
30 and 31, are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
34.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety as overbroad, oppressive and unduly burdensome and expensive.
The character, competence, commitment to licensing requirements and integrity of Southern Nuclear's management is indicated by the sum-total of all the acts and statements of its officers and employees, and there is no reasonable way to identify all of the documents which memorialize such acts and statements.
Without waiving such objection, GPC refers Intervenor to the NRC's letter transmitting to Intervenor's counsel the NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.
l 35.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome and expensive.
There are thousands of documents which pertain to the reliability of the Plant Vogtle diesel generators.
Without waiving such objection, documents responsive to this request, consisting of documents related to the reliability, operability and testing of the Vogtle Unit 1 diesel generators during the period March 20, 1990 through November 30, 1990, are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta. '
A 36.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and expensive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it seeks all documents related to the March 20, 1990 site area emergency at Plant Vogtle.
That event was the subject of an extensive inspection by an NRC Augmented Inspection Team and Incident Inspection Team which examined a number of subject areas, one of which was the operation of the Vogtle Unit 1 diesel generators.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents which are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
This request also seeks a document provided to GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
Without waiving such objections, documents responsive to this request, which are the same documents being produced by GPC in response to Request No. 15, are 4
available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in i
r Atlanta.
The following documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition. -..
b.
NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in the following proceedings:
i 1)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and 2)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-2RA-1 and 11.
37.
GPC incorporates.its response to Request No. 36.
38.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad, oppressive unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it seeks documents which are beyond the Factual Bases.
Without waiving this objection, documents responsive to this request, included among the documents being produced by GPC in response to Request No. 15, are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta.
Specifically, see GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.12 (Item 17), subsection b, and, with respect to the named individuals, see the following Bates numbers:
a)
R.
P. Mcdonald - 2293-2427 b)
C.
K. McCoy - 23773-24336 and 44749-44753.
c)
W.
G.
Hairston, III - 7214-7881 d)
W.
B. Shipman - 15072-15524 e)
N. J.
Stringfellow - 3413-3583 f)
G.
Bockhold, Jr. - 15733-15768 39.
GPC will not be able to determine which documents will be relied on at the hearing until it learns what incidents Intervenor intends to raise at the hearing.
Documents which
]
GPC or its witnesses may rely on at the hearing include, but are not limited to, those documents which (1) GPC is producing, as indicated herein, in response to Intervenor's First Request for Production of Documents, or (2) are otherwise identified herein or in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories and have previously been provided, or are available, to Intervenor.
40.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to any matter raised in the "2.206 petition," as defined by Intervenor.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents that are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
Without waiving such objections, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at.
the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are those documents being produced by GPC in response to Request Nos. 33 and 35.
The following documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in the following proceedings:
1)
Hobby v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30; 2)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and 3)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
41.
GPC objects to this request in its entirety since it seeks documents subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work product doctrine or both.
42.
Documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta, except as noted below:
a)
GPC objects as unduly burdensome to producing i
those documents identified in the following responses of GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of j.
Interrogatories since Intervenor already has copies of, or access to, such documents:
Response Nos.
1, 5.b, 7/8.a, 10.a, 10.b(1) and (2), 10.f, 10.g, 12 (items 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,15,16,19 and 20), 15.b, 15.d (partial), and 17 (partial).
b)
GPC objects to producing those documents identified in the following responses of GPC's-Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories on the grounds that such documents are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine as indicated:
Response Nos.
2, and 6.a - attorney work product; Response Nos. 54.b and c - attorney work product and attorney-client communication.
c)
With respect to Response No. 5.a of GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories, GPC objects to producing transcripts of the tape recordings made by Intervenor which are unrelated to the Factual Bases, including those transcripts which were introduced as exhibits in Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
Without waiving such objection, transcripts of portions of the following tape recordings made by Intervenor are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta: i I
I
~
Iaoe No.
Dated 7
March 22, 1990 8
March 23, 1990 11 March 24, 1990 12 March 24, 1990 13 March 25, 1990 14 March 26, 1990 17 March 27, 1990 18 March 27, 2990 19 March 28, 1990 20 March 28, 1990 21 March 28, 2990 24 March 30, 1990 27 April 2, 1990 29 April 3, 1990 31 April 3, 1990 32 April 4, 1990 40 April 10, 1990 43 April 12, 1990 45 April 16, 1990 47 April 16, 1990 48 April 17, 1990 49 April 17, 1990 53 April 18, 1990 66 April 25, 1990 69 April 26, 1990 71 April 27, 1990 79 May 7, 1990 86 May 1, 1990 87 May 1, 1990 89 May 2, 1990 90 May 2, 1990 96 May 4, 1990 102 May 9, 1990 103 May 9, 1990 106 May 10, 1990 107 May 10, 1990 122 May 18, 1990 126 May 23, 1990 127 May 24, 1990 128 May 24, 1990 143 June 4, 1990 157 June 13, 1990 161 June 13, 1990 162 June 13, 1990 172 June 19, 1990 176 June 21, 1990 -
l 188 July 2, 1990 255 August 15-16, 1990 262 August 27, 1990 d)
GPC objects to producing the letter sent to GPC from DOJ on July 20, 1992 for the reasons stated.in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
e)
GPC is not able to locate, and therefore cannot produce, copies of the transcripts identified in Section III.5.f of GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories.
43.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to any allegation ever made by any person that GPC, Southern Nuclear, The Southern Company, Southern Company Services, Alabama Power Company, the co-owners of Plant Vogtle, or any of the employees or representatives of any of them, engaged in any criminal violation or intentional violation of NRC regulations.
GPC also objects to this request to the extent l
it seeks documents which are subject to the attorney-client communications privilege or the attorney work. product doctrine.
This request also seeks a document provided to GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of >
w-
Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
Without waiving these objections, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are those documents which GPC is producing in response to Document Request Nos. 33, 35 and 42.
The following documents have already been provided, or are available, to Intervenor:
a.
GPC's responses to the Hobby /Mosbaugh 2.206 Petition.
b.
NRC's Partial Director's Decision, DD-93-08, dated April 23, 1993.
c.
Depositions, pleadings, or documents produced in the following proceedings:
1)
Hobby v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-30; 2)
Mosbauch v.
GPC, DOL Case No. 90-ERA-58; and 3)
Mosbauch v. GPC, DOL Case Nos. 91-ERA-1 and 11.
44.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks documents related to i
any contact with DOJ since March 19, 1990 by GPC, Southern Nuclear, The Southern Company, Southern Company Services, Alabama Power Company, the co-owners of Plant Vogtle, or any of the employees or representatives of any of them.
Without 1
i waiving such objection, documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are included among the documents which GPC is producing in response to Request No. 35 and Request No. 42 with respect to GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d, with the exception of a document provided to GPC from DOJ which GPC objects to disclosing for the reasons stated in GPC's Response to Allen Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories,Section III.10, subsection d.
45.
GPC interprets this request as seeking documents related to the Factual Bases.
Documents responsive to this request are available for inspection at the GPC Records Center in Atlanta and are those documents which GPC is producing in response to Document Request Nos. 33, 35 and 42.
46.
GPC objects to this request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks any document demonstrating, directly or indirectly, that any manager or officer of GPC, Southern Nuclear, The Southern Company, Southern Company Services, Alabama Power Company, or the co-owners of Plant Vogtle, ever engaged in any criminal,
y
t, activity.
Without waiving this objection, GPC is unaware of any document which demonstrates, directly or indirectly, that any current GPC or Southern Nuclear manager or officer ever engaged in criminal activity.
Dated:
June 2, 1993.
i M
/
'hn' Lamb 6rski ~
TROUTMAN SANDERS Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885-3360 Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.,
Esq.
David R.
Lewis, Esq.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 663-8084 Counsel for Georgia Power Company i
- 37
j(
RELATED CORRESPONUhkds UNITED STATES OF AMERICAEPi I' d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 et _a_1 50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric Re: License Amendment Generating Plant, (Transfer to Southern Units 1 and 2)
Nuclear)
ASLBP No. 96-671-01-OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the within and fore-going " Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervenor's First Request for Production of Documents" were served on all those listed on the attached service list by depositing same with the U.S.
Postal Service affixed with sufficient postage to ensure delivery.
This is the 2nd day of June, 1993.
/
/
MA l
o n
' hn 'Lamberbki ~
Q,TROUTMANSANDERS Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885-3360
i i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 et al.
50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric Re: License Amendment Generating Plant, (Transfer to Southern Units 1 and 2)
Nuclear)
ASLBP No. 96-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Stewart D.
Ebneter Peter B.
Block, Chairman Regional Administrator Atomic Safety and Licensing USNRC, Region II Board 101 Marietta Street, NW U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Suite 2900 Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory James H.
Carpenter Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.
C.
20555 Board ATTN:
Docketing and Services U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Branch Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles Barth, Esq.
Office of General Counsel Administrative Judge One White Flint North Thomas D.
Murphy Stop 15B18 Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.
C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Director, Environmental Protection Michael D.
Kohn, Esq.
Division Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
Department of Natural 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Resources Washington, D.C.
20001 205 Butler Street, S.E.
Suite 1252 Office of Commission Appellate Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Adjudication One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 ATTENTION:
Docketing and Service Branch
__ _