ML20070A921

Intervenors Motion to Complete Responses to Intervenor Third Set of Interrogatory Questions & Document Request.* Requests Licensing Board Require Util to File Full Responses to Requests 1-4,6-7,9 & 15.W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List

ML20070A921
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	06/22/1994
From:	Kohn M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#294-15255 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9406290207
Download: ML20070A921 (11)

Text

__ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. . c.- . . n .: a e.o; j5255 00 M ED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'94 JUN 23 P4 :04

)

In the Matter of )

Docket Nos. 50-4 ,nOLA,3 ,-

) ' '

50-4 4 '-3 -

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY )

at ale., ) .O . .^

) Re: License Amendment' (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

__ ) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO COMPLETE RESPONSES TO INTERVENOR'S TRLRD_,. SET ___OF INTE_RROGATORY OUESTIORS AND DO.SUMENT___REOUEST On May 17, 1994 Intervonor, Allen L. Mosbaugh, filed his Third Set of Interrogatorios on counsel to Georgia Power Company

("GPC"). On June 10, 1994, Licensee filed GPC's Response to Allen L. Mosbaugh's Third Set of Interrogatories (hereinafter "GPC Response"). Intervenor hereby requests that this honorabic  :

t licenning Board require GPC to file full, complete, and non-ovasive responses to interrogatory requests Nos. 1-4, 6-7, 9 and Delow Intervenor sots forth the grounds 'for requesting

~

15.

further responsen to Intervenor's third set of interrogatory ,

requests.' ,

Resnonsn to Interroaatory and Document heauest No. 1 in_ deficient '

Interrogatory No. 1 requests GPC to " identify every tape- ,

transcript in the control or possession of GPC or its counsel ,

that were compiled from any tape recording prepared by Allen Mosbaugh." GPC objected on the grounds that all of the Mosbaugh I tapes are not relevant. Egg GPC's Response to Allan Mosbaugh's l l

Third Set of Interrogatories, dated June 10, 1990 (hereinafter "GPC's Response"), at p. 34. There is little merit to the 1

o>

9406290207 940622 'D PDR ADOCK 05000424 9 PDR ,

I

a..~.~ ., ..

assertion that all of the Mosbaugh tapes are not relevant to this ,

proceeding and could load to relevant material. The tapes form a completo documentary picture of the events occurring during the site area emergency as well as GPC's response to the emergency.

The tapes, in their entirety, are relevant to this proceeding.

Hoppenno to Interrocaterv and Docum.ent Requent No. 2 Ln @f.LGLellt Interrogatory No. 2 requested Licensoe to "[ijdentify everyono known to GPC\ Southern Nuclear that was a party to any portion of the 4-19-90 afternoon telephone conference call between the sito and corporate offices" with respect to two conferenco calls identified in NBC Tape Transcript No. 58, Additionally, betwcon page 8, line 7, and page 17, line 11.

Intervenor requested that for each person identified, Licensco was to " state the location (including city, building and office) of each person during tha call." GPC's response is totally deficient as it: ]) fails to identify the persons on the call whose voices are not heard; 2) fails to provide information learned by'GPC about the locaticn and participation v.

of Individuals that in not contained in the tape transcript; 3) the exact offices are not specified (i.o., GPC only provides the building and not the offices within the building).

Refunnge to Interrogatory and Document Reauest tro. 1 is dmLicient GPC's response to Interrogatory No. 3 is particularly troubl ing . This request in its antirety states as follows:

With respect to the Plant Vogtle Unit 1 Emergency Diesel Generator 1A, start Nos. 139, 140, 141, 146, 148, and 2

.; #- a - 2 , , 4 .e_ _

Generator 1B start Nos. 120, 121, 123, 124, 132, 133, 134, 136, 153, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 164, and 165, identify whether any problem or failure occurred during any start or run identified above. For each such identified start or run, state in detail the following:

a. Primary cause of any problem or failure that occurred during that start or runt

b. Secondary causo(s) of any problom or failure that occurrod during that start or run;

c. Root cause of any problem or failure that occurred during that start or run.

d. Identify each and every start listed above that was believed or suspected to have a common causo with the failures occurring during the 3-20-90 Site Area Emergency.

GPC'c Response (at p. 34-37) demonstrates that the Licensee han failed to: 1) state the primary cause of problems and failures of the diesels; 2) state the secondary causes of the failuros; 3) identify the root cause of any of the failures. The information Intervenor seeks is similar is scopo to the information this Board requestod in its June 10, 1994 Memorandum +

and Order-(Board Questions and concern), wherein the Doard roguested that GPC; 1) produce full documentation about diesel start attempts through March 20, 1990 and to provide information about the root cause of -these starts. Intervonor essentially t

sought the same information. GPC claims in its interrogatory responso that this interrogatory essentially requires GPC to engago in "new analysis" of the root cause of the diesel generator failures. This response is troubling inasmuch it appears to concode that GPC never provided a root causo analysis with respect to diesel generator failures. Nonetheless, GPC should still be required to provide information as to what it believen the root cause of those failures to be, as well as

. 3

.=

u....-. .:

1 1

a primary and secondary causes and to otherwise provide the same information the Board requests with respect to diesel generator I

starts between January 1 and March 20, 1990. l Responnn to Interrogatory and Docunnnt Requent No. 4 in deficient Interrogatory question No. 4 requests Licensee to identify by start number when. Plant Vogtle Emergency Diesel Generators lA and 1B- a) came out of " maintenance overhaul"; b) were " returned to servico"; c) " declared operable"; and d) starts that constitute " post maintenance starts." GPC refused to respond on the asnartion that Intervenor " fails to reference the source of the quoted language" and because different knowledgeable persons may apply different connotations to the quoted phrases in different contexts." GPC's Response at p. 37. Intervonor notes that, to the extent GPC felt it necessary to define the term, it was free to do no or could ask for further clarification.

Nonetheless, the terius are conta'ined in RUREG 1410, draft or final letters sent by GPC to NRC. In this respect, the term coming out of "maintenanco overhaul" is used in paragraph 7 of GPC's Request for Stipulations; "roturned to service" is used in Appendix J-3 of NUREG 1410; " declared operable" is used in Appendix J-3 and is apart of the technical specifications governing Plant Vogtle; and " post maintenance start [s]" refers to language contained in a footnote (fn. 2) and a table (Table 2) of a draft of the August 30, 1990 3etter GPC sent to NRC at fn 2 (a copy of this document was identified as Intervenor deposition Exhibit No. 22). GPO should be required to respond to the clear 4

c u ,- :.- w ; w >- .

and obvious definition of the terms stated above.

Pfe.JPJ2RCte_to Interroaatory_.3Dd Document Recuest No.

6 11_deficien%

Intervenor's interrogatory request No. 6 states:

List the air quality and due point reading taken between 1989 and 1990 of Vogtle Diesel Generators 1A, With respect to this list: 1B, 2A or 2D.

a.

Identify all occasions, during 1989 and 1990, when the Vogtle Diessl Generator 1A, 1B, 2A or 2B control air quality (including the dowpoints) were not satisfactory.

i)

For each occasion, state the date, time and dewpoint measured for each diesel.

li) Identify all corrective action (s) taken to correct each instance where the dewpoint was considered to be less than satisfactory (i.e.

"not satisfactory").

iii)

Identify every person who know the dewpoint was less than satisfactory.

GPC'c response is deficient inasmuch as it totally fails to state the date and time of each dowpoint measurements that were unsatinfactory.

To the extent tne computer generated documents may respond to some of the requested information, the documents have not been produced .(production in lieu of re; inding to interrogatory responnes requires that the documentt ae provided

+.

to Intervonor as part of the response and not made available in Atlanta). Additionally, GPC asserts that it is too burdensome to identify who had knowledge of the deficient dewpoint readings.

GPC was free to limit the scope and respond so ao not to be -

overly burdensome, but failed to do so and instead refused to annwer.

Intelvonor has a right to know which members of GPC/ Southern Nuclear management knew of the unacceptable dewpoints and this Honorable Board should order GPC to fully respond to this request.

5

r_ s.x a ve 4-;;-l e s 2 &:a i Eg_sponse to Interrogatory and Document Recuest No, 7 in deficient Interrogatory No. 7 states:

Identify each occasion during 1989 and 1990 when the Vogtle Emergency Diesel Generators lA, 1D, 2A and 2D, had a control air drycr(s) out of service and the associated compressor (s) in service.

a. Identify every person who knew this condition existed.

GPC's response is deficient inasmuch as it fails to identify any persons with knowledge of the air dryers being out or service. Intervenor has a right to know the members of management within GPC/ Southern Nuclear who knew of this condition. As with its response to Interrogatory no. 7, GPC fails to provida documentation necessary to allow Intervenor the ability to assess whether the co.mpdter documentation sufficiently responds to the roquest.

fLernonne to Tntenogatory and Dpcurnent Romiest No. 9

.is defici_gnt Interrogatory quest' ion No. 9 states:

Stato in detail every~ specific. fact Licensee is aware of which it bclieves could adversely affect a,dotermination concorning the credibility of Allen Mosbaugh.

a. For each auch fact produce all relevant documents Licensee relied upon to reach its conclusion which GPC has in its control or possession;

b. For each such fact identify all relevant documents which GPC does not have in its control or ponnession but knows or believen to exist;

c. For each such fact state the loentity of every person Licensee contacted to reach its conclusion.

When responding GPC objected on the basis that the information sought would interfere with GPC's ability to prepare for cross-examination and would interfere with its trial 6

strategy. In this respect, the trial strategy concerns what information to select. This interrogatory rather requests all 1

facts that could be used and it does not require Licensee's I counsel to specify which facts it will eventually rely upon. The fact remains that the purpose of discovery is to preclude trial by ambush. GPC's objection bails down to a complaint that it will not be able to ambush Mr. Mosbaugh at the hearing. This does not appear to be a legitimate objection.

Reoro.nse to intorrenatorv and Document Reauest No. 15

,is deficient Intervenor's interrogatory request No. 15 states:

State whether Intervenor has ever been subjected to any form of background investigation, credit check, or any other type investigation or inquiry by GPC or its counsel or any entity know to GPC or its counsel. If the answer is yes: 1

a. Identify all persons, companies or corporations {

(or other entities)'GPC has ever employed to investigate Intervenor at any time. For cach such investigation undertaken by Intervenor:

i) Identify.the person (s) ' employed; ii) Identify what specific factual  !

information they were to obtain; i lii) Identify who authorized the l

investigation; 1 IV) Identify who knew of th'e investigation.

v) Produce all information' and documents '

obtained about Intervenor.

GPC objects to this interrogatory request on the basis that it in protected by attorney-client and work product privileges.

Over this objection, GPC implios that its investigations of Mr. I

{

Monbaugh consist of the " historically conducted background investigations" required by NRC regulations. Intervenor believes that this response is misleading inasmuch as next-door neighbors and other individuals have contacted Mr. Mosbaugh and advised him 1

7 I l

l l

r -

jJ m,, .cr I e r?

• l i

- l that persons were seeking to obtain personal information about I l

Mr. Monbaugh. These contacts and communication occurred in 1994 l

and could not be part of the " historic" background investigations '

conducted by GPC. GPC should be required to stato the extent, purpone and methods it employed to gather personal information '

about Intervenor.

Concl_qlion GPC's responses to Intervenor's third set of interrogatories 3

are evasivo and incomplete. For the reasons stated herein, GPc should be rnquired to provided additional information with respect to interrogatory questions identified above.  !

Respectfully submitted,

/7M Michael D. Kohn Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C. i 517 Florida Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001  ;

(202) 234-4663 301\ motion.2 l

l l

)

i 8 l l

i l

r

.; s .-; ;-a :: 1: x. +.:e I

DJCHFTLD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U 3'PC' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD "94 Ri 23 P 4 .O

)

In the Matter of ) '

Offii  ;, ,

) Docket Nos. 50-4 24 -OLR93h r: ; ;t,t ;

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 '

d ph, ,@ ,

) '

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Gnuerating )

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

(transfer to Southern Nuclear)

_) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 p.E R T T F E A T E O F E1 E R V I C E I hereby certify that Intervonor's Motion to Compel Completed Rosponses to Interrogatories From GPC and Intervenor's Supplement To Licensee's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documentn have been served this 22nd day of June, 1994, by first class mail upon the persons listed in the attached Service Lint (additional service by facsimile indicated by "*").

Dy: Ihf*1 hf/f41/) ihfMn ,

Mdry. Jppe' Wil' moth,' Esq.

KOHN,/KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.

517 Tlorida Ave., M.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 (20s) 234-4663 r

• k

• t 1

. = -

r

.v , ; . .. ., .f .o ""

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 grti ML_, )

) Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating ) (transfer to Southern Nuclear)

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) ) '

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LTST

• Administrativo Judge Peter D. Bloch, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge '

James H. Carponter 933 Green Point Drive Oyster Point Sunset Beach, NC 28460

• Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry'Comnicsion Washington, D.C. 20555

• Charlon A. Barth, Esq. -

Offico of General Counsel '-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• John Lamberski, Esq.

Troutman Sanders Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Stroot, N.E.

Atlanta, CA 30308-2216

• Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

David 2. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &

TROWDRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 2

4 a s . .- a: .e -

• 0ffice of the Secretary Attn: Docketing and Servico U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunluulon Washington, D.C. 20555 Offico of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 301\ cort.lis l

l l

=

l l

1 l

3 l

1 l

l TQTAL P.14