ML20070G962
| ML20070G962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1994 |
| From: | Lamberski J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| CON-#394-15431 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9407210037 | |
| Download: ML20070G962 (11) | |
Text
( $Dfd)/
00CKETED USHP,C July 18, 1994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "94,R 19 P4 :51 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE Cf Ef"E..IARY Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina IDQffdIJN S M DKith2
)
)
i In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
)
50-425-OLA-3 I
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
Re: License Amendment
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear) l Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENOR'S JULY 7, 1994 DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER I.
INTRODUCTION.
Georgia Power Company ("GPC") hereby objects to (1) Inter-venor's Fifth Request for Interrogatories and Document Request to Georgia Power, dated July 7, 1994 (the "Fifth Request"), and (2)
Intervenor's Third Request for Admissions to Georgia Power Compa-i ny, dated July 7, 1994 (" Third Request for Admissions").F Pur-i suant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(c), GPC moves the Licensing Board for j
a protective order providing that the discovery requested by Intervenor's July ? Discovery Requests shall not be had.
Interv-enor's July 7 Discovery Requests are not a good faith attempt to obtain information necessary to support Intervenor's position on j
the diesel statements issue in this proceeding and are an obvious
)
)
F The Fifth Request and the Third Request for_ Admissions are collectively referred to herein as the " July 7 Discovery Re-quests."
9407210037 94071s
')} 9 )
PDR ADOCK 05000424 0
O PDR
.=
P attempt to harass and oppress GPC at a time when GPC is burdened with numerous other obligations in this case, as well as re-sponding to the NRC's May 9, 1994 Notice of Violation and Demands i
for Information.
I Intervenor's Fifth Request asks GPC to identify, for each and every one of 148 Mosbaugh tape recordings (1) the names of.
i all speakers on the tapes, (2) every statement made by each spe-l aker, (3) all inaudible sections on each tape, and (4) whether each and every statement is true and accurate.
Further, where GPC denies the accuracy of any statement, the Fifth Request asks GPC to explain in detail the reasons why it concludes that such I
statements are not true and accurate.
Also, the Fifth Request j
seeks production of all transcripts which GPC has prepared of any of the identified tapes, along with any documents used or created i
in answering the request.
The Third Request for Admissi(?s asks GPC to (1) admit to the accuracy of 22 transcripts prepared by the NRC which were included as exhibits to the December 20, 1993 OI Report, (2) explain in detail the reasons for denying the accuracy of any part, section, and/or sentence of such transcripts, and (3) pro-
.l f
duce transcripts which have not previously been produced, along with any documents used or created in answering the request.
i i
'I l
?
,.i
II.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE JULY 7 DISCOVERY REOUESTS.F GPC's objects to the July 7 Discovery Requests in their en-tirety on the grounds that (1) responding to the requests would be unduly burdensome, expensive and oppressive, (2) Intervenor has made no attempt to focus his request on any material state-ment, (3) responding to the requests would require GPC to perform extensive analyses of tapes and transcripts which is not neces-sary to support Intervenor's position on the diesel statements issue in this case, (4) the requests are overbroad and seek in-formation which is outside of the scope of discovery established by the Board's Memorandmn and Order (Scope of Discovery), dated June 2, 1994, (5) the requests seek privileged information which is subject to the attorney work product doctrine, and (6) the requests are an obvious attempt to harass and oppress GPC at a time when it is responding to other Intervenor discovery re-quests, defending depositions requested by Intervenor, preparing for its own depositions, and responding to the Board'a June 9, 1994 Memorandum and Order (Board Questions and Concern).
The July 7 Discovery Requests ask GPC to analyze countless statements on each and every one of 148 tapes and 22 NRC tran-scripts.F GPC could not possibly respond to these requests wit-F GPC is not waiving and reserves its right to state general objections to the July 7 Discovery Requests consistent with GPC's General Objections stated in prior GPC responses to Intervenor's discovery requests, to which Intervenor has not objected.
i F GPC observes that two of the 22 NRC transcripts identified are nos. 57 and 58.
The parties have had discussions about the specific statements on these transcripts pursuant to which coun-sel for GPC has prepared a cleaned-up transcript for Tape 57 (see
-3 l
l l
f 1
hin the time remaining during the discovery period.
Intervenor i
could have made these requests months ago, but waited until there was one month left in the discovery period -- the time which was primarily reserved for diesel depositions -- to drop them on GPC.
This is not the sort of honed discovery request which reasonably might be served at this late date.
Intervenor has had the 148 tapes identified in the Fifth Request in his possession for over three years.
The 22 NRC tran-scripts identified in the Third Request for Admissions have been i
available to Intervenor since December, 1993.
Intervenor has j
f nade no attempt to identify the portions of the 148 tapes, if any, or the 22 NRC transcripts which it believes contain discus-sions relevant to the issues in this proceeding.
Intervenor has l
i not responded to GPC's February 28, 1994 request for stipulations l
concerning transcripts, which include NRC transcripts marked-up by GPd after listening to the respective tapes.
And Intervenor i
has made no attempt to propose stipulations to transcripts which j
i he believes he may use at the hearing.
j Intervenor has made no attempt to identify relevant portions of the tapes or transcripts order to reduce his discovery re-letter from John Lamberski to Charles Barth and Michael Kohn, dated June 22, 1994), and will shortly complete one flor Tape 58.
GPC objects to further addressing the transcripts of 57 and 58 which are included in the OI Report on the basis that the parties have already spent numerous hours discussing proposed changes to those transcripts.
GPC believes tha_ inclusion of these two tapes in the Third Request for Admissions semonstrates the thoughtlessness of Inter-venor's request.
Intervenor simply listed all of the tape tran-scripts cited in the OI Report without considering whether he had a particular need for any of those transcripts..
\\
quests to manageable proportions.
The Board's February 1, 1994 Memorandum and Order (Prehearing Conference Order: Schedule), at 1-2, provided, in part:
The parties may file requests for stipulations at any time.
Licensee shall promptly file a request for stipulations concerning key portions of the Mosbaugh tapes, particularly those recorded on April 19, 1990 (tapes 57 and 58).
Inter-venor may file additional requests for stipulations based on those portions of the Six Tapes that were not recorded on April 19, 1990.
In response to those requests which must he l
filed within one month, parties may respond 'oy requesting stipulations on tape portions that they believe relevant to the requests....
(footnote omitted; emphasis added) i In response to the Board's Order, only GPC proposed stipulations to the other parties with respect to the tape transcripts.
In proffering these stipulations on February 28, 1994, GPC took the time to identify relevant portions of the tapes and either have them transcribed or, in the case of the NRC transcripts, to make corrections to the transcripts after listening to the tapes.
At the March 1, 1994 status conference Intervenor's counsel stated that any additional transcript excerpts he would propose for stipulation in response to Licensee's proposal would be from the NRC prepared transcripts.
See letter from Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.
to the Licensing Board, dated March 2, 1994, at 2.
Since then, Intervenor has not proposed any transcript excerpts from the NRC tapes and he has not otherwise responded to GPC's proposed stipu-lations.F At this late date in the discovery period, GPC ob-F As a result of Intervenor's inaction on GPC's February 28, 1994 request, GPC was forced to convert the request into a re-quest for admissions.
See Georgia Power Company's Second Request for Admissions and Fourth Request for Production of Documents, dated June 22, 1994. - - -
l jects to performing the additional analyses requested by the July 7 Discovery Requests when Intervenor did not respond to GPC's proposed stipulations in accordance with the deadline set by the Board's February 1 Order and did not himself propose any stipula-tions.
Furthermore, on the grounds of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740 (b) (3), GPC objects to performing additional analyses of these tapes and transcripts which is not necessary to support Intervenor's posi-tion on the diesel statements issue in this case.
GPC believes that, other than the tapes transcribed by the NRC, GPC has al-ready identified those tape portions which contain information relevant to the diesel generator statements at issue in this proceeding, i.e.,
those transcribed tape portions which previous-ly have been produced to Intervenor.
See GPC's discussion of the history of Intervenor's requests for tape transcripts in Georgia i
Power Company's Answer to Intervenor's Motion to Complete Re-sponses to Intervenor's Third Set of Interrogatory Questions and Document Request, dated July 7, 1994, at 2-5 ("GPC's Answer").
[
Intervenor's Fifth Request concerns tapes other than those for which transcripts have been produced by either GPC or the NRC.
Therefore, Intervenor's Fifth Request is simply discovery beyond the bounds of this proceeding.
Intervenor's Third Request for Admissions also seeks information outside the scope of discovery and is, therefore, overbroad.
Large portions of the 22 NRC tran-scripts contain information which has nothing to do with the diesel statements i., sue in this case.
Nevertheless, Intervenor -
. - - ~..
requests that GPC analyze each and every statement on the 22 tape transcripts, j
The July 7 Discovery Requests ask GPC to produce transcripts j
of portions of the Mosbaugh tapes in GPC's possession which GPC f
i has not already produced.
Intervenor has made this request nu-5 i
merous times.
Egg GPC's Answer at 2-5.
GPC objects to this i
request for the same reasons stated in Georgia Power Company's i
f Response to Allen L. Mosbaugh's Third Set of Interrogatories, i
dated June 10, 1994, which GPC incorporates herein by reference.
l l
Further, Intervenor has made no showing why GPC's attorney work t
'l product should be invaded.
Intervenor is in possession of origi-i nal tapes or copies thereof and is perfectly able to review their contents.
GPC counsel's transcripts are simply not needed.
i Intervenor's July 7 Discovery Requests are not a good faith j
attempt to obtain information which Intervenor requires to sup-port its position on the diesel statements issue in this case.
l Rather, they are an obvious attempt to harass and oppress GPC with an overwhelming volume of " busy work."
Intervenor served its July 7 Discovery Requests knowing full well that it would be j
difficult for GPC to meet all the obligations it is presently i
l burdened with in this caseF and also respond to the NRC's May 9, I
F GPC is presently responding to a number of Intervenor's discovery requests, including Intervenor's Fourth Interrogatory and Document Request to Georgia Power (June 29, 1994), Interv-enor's Second Request for Admissions to Georgia Power (July 1,
{
1994), and Intervenor's Sixth Interrogatory and Document Request j
to Georgia Power Company (July 8,
1994).
GPC must also prepare I
witnesses for, and defend, at least sixteen depositions during l
the weeks of July 18 and July 25.
GPC must prepare for and con-duct its own depositions of Intervenor and NRC Staff witnesses.
[
1994, Notice of Violation and Demands for Information.
III.
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER.
l For the reasons stated above, GPC moves the Licensing Board for a protective order, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.S 2.740(c), provid-ing that the discovery requested by Intervenor's July 7 Discovery l
Requests not be had.
t In addition, GPC must respond to the Board's June 9, 1990 Memora-ndum and Order (Board Questions and Concern).
Finally, GPC must respond to Intervenor's Motion to Accept Additional Factual Basis in Support of the Admitted Contention (July 6, 1994).
Respectfully submitted,
/
' hh 'Lambettki '
TROUTMAN SANDERS Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885-3360 Ernest L.
Blake David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20337 (202) 663-8084 Counsel for Georgia Power Company Dated:
July 18, 1994 - -
t t
DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USh'RC i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
J i
'94 J' L 19 pa :5j Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board 0FFiCE Or ECRETARY
)
DOCXE TING 4 SERVICF-In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OEXL dCH 3
)
50-425-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
l et al.
)
Re: License Amendment j
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear)
{
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 l
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j
i I hereby certify that copies of Georgia Power Company's v
Objections to Intervenor's July 7 Discovery Requests and Motion for a Protective Order, dated July 18, 1994, were served by ex-l press mail upon the persons listed on the attached service list (or where shown by an
- by hand delivery), this 18th day of July,
(
I 1994.
I
{
i hn Lamberski
~
I 2
a s
l
,r w
w-ei.
.m..,
S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Docket Nos. 5 0-4 2 4 -OLA-3 21 al.
50-425-OLA-3 Re: License Amendment (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, (Transfer to Southern Units 1 and 2)
Nuclear)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Stewart D.
Ebneter Peter B.
Bloch, 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 Ser-933 Green Point Drive vices Branch Oyster Point Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Charles Barth, Esq.
Office of General Counsel Administrative Judge One White Flint North i
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 j
517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Resources j
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