ML20071G985
| ML20071G985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1994 |
| From: | Lamberski J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#394-15365 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9407130196 | |
| Download: ML20071G985 (20) | |
Text
._
/ Ei 3 62i OChi Il D July []7V51994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 94 3 -8 [12:47 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board gj}gi W u G!IlfY 00LKl IPn >
' ' dI
)
squmH In the Matter of
)
Docket Hos. 50-424-OLA-3
)
50-425-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
Re License Amendmenc
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear)
Plant, Unita 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLDP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO COMPLETE RESPONSES TO INTERVENOR'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORY _OUESTIONS AND DOCUMENT REOUEST I.
Intrtikction Georgia Power Company ("GPC") hereby answers "Intervonor's Motion to complete (sic) Responses to Intervonor's Third Set of Interrogatory Questions and Document Request" (hereinafter
" Motion"), which Intervonor Allen L. Mosbaugh filed on June 22, 1994.
Intervenor's motion, which GPC construes as a motion to compel, lacks merit and should be denied.
Intervenor's motion relates to "Intervonor's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Geor-gia Power, served on May 17, 1994" (hereinafter " Third Discovery Request").
(PC provided a forty-five page response on June 10, and made available certain requested docilments.
Esa Georgia Power Company's Response to Allen L. Mosbaugh's Third Set of Interrogatories (June 10, 1994) (hereinafter " Response").
9407130196 940707 PDR ADOCK 05000424 4
g PDR
&V
= _ ~ _.
We met with Intervenor's counsel on July 1 to discuss Inter-venor's Motion.
We were unable, however, to assuage any of Intervonor's concerns.
II.
Discussion Interroaatory and Document Request No. 1 Intervonor's Interrogatory and Document Roquest No. 1 to GPCF asked GPC to identify every tapa transcript in the cor trol of GPC or its counsel that were compiled from any tape recording prepared by Allen Mosbaugh, and ;oquested that GPC produce a copy of all transcripts not previously produced to Intervenor.
Although transcripts have boon produced of all tapes datormined to be relevant to the diesel generator issue, and Intervenor has previously expressed satisfaction with that production, Interve-nor now claims that all tapes are relevant to this proceeding because "[t]he tapes form a completo documentary picture of the events occurring during the site area emergency as well as GPC's response to the emergency."
Motion at 2.
Intervenor's argumoat flies in the face of the Board's June 2,
1994 Memorandum and Order (Scopo of Discovery).
Rosponding te GPC's concern over prior discovery requests pertaining to the site area emergency in general, the Board ruled that Intervenor's contention relates to the representations concerning diesel gen-orator reliability.
The Board stated that Intervenor "may expect F
Intervonor's Third Discovery Request at 11.
Intervenor's Third Discovery Roquest also included interrogatories to named persons. _
l rnswers to questions directed to discovering what different indi-
)
viduals learned during the alte area emergency, providing that the a..st' ors may be expected to relate directly or indirectly to whether Georgia Power told the whole truth to the NRC about its dienr1 generators."
1d4 at 's.
Since GPC and the NRC Staff have 9ecvinusly produced the transcripts which relate to whether GPC told the truth about the diesel generators, Intervenors demand for tapes unrelated to the diesel generator issue is simply dis-covery beyond the bounds of this proceeding.
Intervenor ignores the prior discovery in this case, and it likewise ignores GPC's work product claims.F Intervenor first requested identification and production of documents transcribing i
Mr. Mosbaugh's tapes more than a year ago.3' At that time, GPC i
had in its possession copies of 201 tapes that had been released by the NRC Staff as not pertaining to its investigation.
GPC's counsel had reviewed these tapes and made their own transcripts of selected portions of some tapes which counsel determined relevant to various proceedings.
In response to Intervenor's request, GPC identified all the transcripts that had been made by counsel, and voluntarily produced forty-nine, that appeared to
'I have some relevance to the factual bases of Intervenor's F
As has been the practice of the parties in this proceeding, GPC's Response included a. general objection to production of attorney work-product material.
See GPC's Response at 3-4.
2' Intervenor's First Request for Production of Documents by Georgia Power Company (May 4,
1993)
(Document Request No. 42);
Allen Mosbaugh's First set of Interrogatories to Georgia Power Company (May 4, 1993) (Interrogatory No. 5).,
contention (lagt diesel generator " start count" reporting).
GPC objected to producing the remaining transcripts unrelated to the factual bases of Intervenor's contention and also generally objet ed to production of attorney work product material.
Egg Georgia power Company's Response to Allen L. Mosbaugh's First Set of Interrogatories (June 2, 1993) at 3-6, 11-14; Georgia Power Company's Response to Intervonor's First Request for Production of Documents (June 2, 1993) at 2-5, 32-34.
Intervenor did not object to GPC's response at the time.
However, in March 1994, long after the period in which a motion to compel might be filed, Intervonor informed GPC that it planned to file a motion to compel GPC to produce all transcripts of those portions of the 201 tapes selected by counsel in its representation.
To address Intervenor's concern, GPC reviewed its transcripts again and produced an additional eight which might be considered relevant.F Egg letter from J.
Lamberski to M. Kohn (March 7, 1994), attacned.
GPC specifically noted that in producing these tapes, it was not waiving its prior objections, including the claim of work product privilege with respect to the remaining tape transcriptc.
GPC believed that Intervenor was satisfied.
F In response to Intervenor's Third Discovery Request, and in view of the Licensing Board's June 2, 1994 Memorandum and Order providing additional guidance on the scope of discovery, GPC again reviewed the tape transcripts and produced two additional transcripts which contained conversations related to the " air quality" of the diesel generator's control air system.
Egg Response at 34. !
Two months later, however, Intervenor filed a " Motion to Compel Tape Transcripts" (May 2, 1994).
After discussions, which included reminding Intervenor of GPC's prior voluntary produc~
tion, Intervonor then voluntarily withdrew his cotion to compel.
Intervenor stated:
Because the tape transcripts are relevant to the phase IIF issues, there would appear to be no need to request these documents during this phase of the proceeding.
Intervenor's Statement of Good Cause to Pile Interrogatory Ques-tions Concerning Illegal Transfer and to Convene Depositions Con-cerning Illegal Transfer of Control (May 6, 1994) at 11.
In sum, Intervenor has admitted that the tape transcripts irrelevant to this phase of this proceeding.
Intervenor has are also made no showing why GPC's attorney work product should be invaded.
Further, Intervenor has the original tapes and thus is perfectly able to review their contents if it is believed that other relevant material is contained on them.
GPC counsel's transcripts are simply not needed, latgrroaatory and Document Reauest No. 2 Intervenor's Interrogatory and Document Request No. 2 asked GPC to " identify everyone known to GPC/Sou'.nern Nuclear that was a party to any portion of the 4-19-90 afternoon telephone confer-ence call between the site and corporate offices for which there is a partial transcript of the conference call in NRC Tape F
GPC assumes that the reference to " phase II" means the second of the two phases discussed in the Board's Memorandum and Order (Case Management), LBP-93-15, _ dated July 21, 1993, at 3.
-S-
= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ -.-
Transcript No. 58, between page 8, line 7, and page 17, line 11."
In addition, it stated, "For each person identified above, state the location (including city, building and office or each person during the call)."F While noting that Intervonor was as capable as GPC of identifying this information, GPC nevertheless responded by identifying the location of each person known to have been a participant in the call.
Response at 34.
Intervenor now asserts that "GPC's response is totally defi-cient" for several reasons.
First, Intervonor asserts that GPC
" fails to identify the persons on the call whose voices are not heard" and " fails ta provide informat10n learned by GPC about the location and participation of individuals that is not contained in the tape transcript."
Motion at 2.
GPC's response identified those persons known to GPC to have been a party to that call.
11e xt, Intervenor asserts, "the exact offices are not specified (i.e., GPC only provides the building and not the offices within the building."
142 GPC's Response stated that Messrs.
Aufdrsnkampe and Mosbaugh were in Mr. Aufdenkampe's office, Mr.
Dockhold was in Mr. Bockhold's office, and Messrs. Hairston, McCoy, shipman, and stringfellow were in Building 42 of the Inverness Center office park near Birmingham.
GPC cannot identify the specific office or offices in Birmingham in which the conference call took place.
F Intervenor's Third Discovery Request at 11-12. _ _ _
Interroaatory and Document Recuest No. 3 Intervonor's Interrogatory and Document Request No. 3 asked GPC to identify whether any problem or failure occurred with respect to twenty-one diesel generator starts, anu with respect to each, to provide the " primary cause," " secondary cause," " root cause," and " common cause."
Third Discovery Request at 12.
GPC objected to the extent that the interrogatory requested GPC to engage in new analyses, but nevertheless identified the cause of the problem or failure among the listed starts.
Response at 34-37.
Intervonor asserts that GPC's response "is troubling inas-much it appears to concede that GPC never provided a root cause analysis with respect to diesel generator failures."
Motion at 3.
GPC made no such concession.
GPC objected because it had not attempted to classify causes associated with starts, a number of which were part of troubleshooting, as " primary, secondary, root, or common."F GPC then stated the causes that it had identified, grouping those starts that shared a common cause.
GPC also referred Intervonor to NUREG-1410 and the Wyle Test Report, which had been previously provided and provides further information on the causes of problems.
Thus, GPC believes its response is complete.
F A party is not required to perform additional analysis to-respond to - an opponent's disccvery request.
Egg 10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 740 (b) (3) ; Pennsylvania Power and Licht Co. (Susquehanna Stean Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 N.R.C.
317, 334 (1980). I
i Interroaatory and Document Reauest No. 4 t
Intervenor's Interrogatory and Document Request No. 4 asked GPC to state the start numbers when diesel generators lA and 1B "came out of maintenance overhaul," were " returned to service,"
i and were " declared operable," and that " constitute.' post-maintenance starts'" during the 1990 refueling outage.
Motion at 4.
Noting that different persons may apply different connotations to the quoted terms, GPC objected to the discovery request as vague because of Intervonor's failure to identify the context.
Response at 37.
GPC nevertheless proceeded to identify the start number associated with each term as GPC interpreted it.
Intervenor now statoo that "GPC refused to respond on the assertion that Intervencr ' fails to reference the source of the quoted language.'"
Intervenor's statement is false.
Despite the vagueness of Intervenor's discovery request, GPC responded fully.
Intervenor's Interrocatory and Document Reauest Nos. 6 and 7 Intervenor's Interrogatory No. 6 asked GPC to provide cer-tain information on air quality and dew point measurements taken I
for the diesel generators between 1989 and 1990, including iden-tification of "every person who knew the dewpoint was less than satisfactory."
Third Discovery Request at 13-14.-
Intervenor's-1 Interrogatory No. 7 asked GPC to identify each occasion when-the air driers were out of service and " identify every' person who knew this condition existed."
GPC responded to these two requests by making available a print-out summarizing the relevant i
vork history, but objected to the requests as unduly burdensome -
'l
.,..,m_.---
y
_m.
,,r y-m-,_,..._,,y
.,.-,.,,,._,s--,--..,,--v-e
,-ee-vw rw-.w.
__~_- -_ -- _-
to the extent they requested identification of "overy person" who may have known of these conditions.
Response at 36.
Without citing any authority, Intervenor now asserts that
" production in lieu of responding to interrogatory responses requires that the documents be prcvided to Intervenor as part of the response and not made available in Atlanta."
Motion at 5.
To resolve this dispute, GPC hand-delivered a copy of the print-out to Intervonor's counsel on July 5, 1994.
San Georgia Power Company's Second Supplemental Response to Allen M. Mosbaugh's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documents (July 5, 1994).
Intervonor also argues that it has a right to know which members of GPC/ Southern Nuc1 car management know of the unaccept-able dowpoints and air driers being out of service.
Motion at 5, 6.
Intervenor did not ask this question.
Instead, its request was far broader and unreasonable, demanding that GPC attempt to identify anyone--including, presumably, maintenance workers, foremen, work-planners and schedulers, secretary and administrative personnel, equipment operators, and the like--who may have been aware of any unsetisfactory dew point measurements or air driers being out of service over a two year pcriod.F F
GPC pointed out that, like other plants, the process at Plant Vogtle associated with requesting work to be performed, obtaining parts, material and tools for work performed; taking equipment our of service; performing work; reviewing work performed; closing out work authorization packages; and periodically reporting on work accomplished necessarily involves numerous people. Response at 38-39.
9
t t
Intervenor appears to acknowledge that its request was unduly burdensome, arguing "GPC was free to limit the scope and respond so as not to be overly burdensome."
Motion at 5.
Although GPC endeavors to respond even when requests are objectionable, it is not required to rewrite Intervenor's requests or to divine what lesser scope of information is of real interest to Intervenor.
Intervernor has scheduled extensive depositions, including depositions of managers involved in preparing the April 9, 1990 letter to NRC (in which the disputed statement concerning air quality was made).
Thus, Intervenor will be able to ask the pertinent individuals, including management, whether they were aware of dew point measurements or air driers being out of service.
In light of this opporte ity, there is little reason to rnwrite Intervenor's overreaching questions.
Intervenor's Interrocatory and Document Recuest No. 9 Intervenor's Interrogatory 9 asked GPC to identify every specific-fact which it believes could adversely aftret a determi-nation of the credibility of Allen Mosbaugh.
Third Discovery Request at 15.
GPC-objected to Interrogatory 9 as burdensome and seeking attorney work product material, i.e. the mental impres-sions and legal strategy of GPC's counsel.
Response at 42.
GPC's counsel has not assembled any document cataloging all the facts that may affect Mr. Mosbaugh's credibility, but it has noted during this proceeding inaccurate or inconsistent state-ments by Mr. Mosbaugh in his written allegations and pleadings, as well-as ques' ionable positions and tactics.
In some cases,.
GPC's counsel has trade inquirlos, in preparation for litigation in this procaeding and through privileged communications, to confirm inaccuracles in Mr. Mosbaugh's representations.
GPC's counsel may confront Mr. Mosbaugh with such inaccuracies and inconsistencies during cross-examination, and is counting in part on the element of surprise to obtain candid and unrohearsed responses from Mr. Mosbaugh.
Premature disclosure of GPC's counsel's thoughts and theories may frustrate our ability to challenge Mr. Mosbaugh's credibility and recollection.
Intervenor does not meaningfully address GPC's work product claim.
With respect to Interrogatory 9, Intervenor states that it merely aroquests all facts that could be used and it does not require Licensee's counsel to specify which facts it will eventually rely upon."
Motion at 7.
This distinction is meaningless.
The reality is that Intervenor wants GPC to parse Mr. Mosbaugh's prior statements!' and identify inaccuracies and inconsistencies for the purpose of preventing GPC from conducting effective cross-examination.
The NRC's Rules of Practice require protection against dis-closure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the proceeding.
10 C.F.R.
- 2. 74 0 (b) (3).
The rules do 2'
As pointed out in GPC's Response, at 42, Intervenor possesses Mr. Mosbaugh's prior testimony and thus already has the factual information he seeks.
Intervonor and his counsel can review these statements themselves to identify the inaccuracies and inconsistencies...-
..~. -
_~
not permit, under any circumstances, interrogatories seeking to require counsel to disclose mental impressions, conclusions and opinions regarding the credibility of an opposing witness.
The NRC's work-product rule is adapted from Fed. R. Civ. P.
26 (b) (3) and adopts the Federal civil standards.
Lona Island Liahtina Co. (shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), L3P-82-82, 16 N.R.C.
1144, 1159 (1982).
"At its core the work product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the actorney, providing a privileged area in which he can analyze and prepare his client's case."
Idt, quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S.
E 225, 238-39 (1975).
It provides a ' zone of privacy' within which attorneys may weigh the merits of their case and determine a litigation plan from which to proceed."
Texas Utilities Elec-tric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
LDP-84-50, 20 N.R~C.
1464, 1473 (1984), citing coastal States Gag Coro. v. DeD't of Eneray, 617 F.2d 854, 864 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
In applying this doctrine, a distinction is often made between " ordinary" and " opinion" work product.
While ordinary work product (that which-does not include the mental-impressions, 7
conclusions and legal theories of the attorney or.other agent) may be obtained by an advurse party upon a showing of "substan--
tial need" and inability without undue hardship to obtain the-substantial equivalent of the materials by other means, " opinion 1
work product".is not discoverable, so long as the material was in fact' prepared by an attorney or other agent 1n anticipation of
~
litigation (and not assembled in the ordinary course of business-w L
d r---www, e rew -ww r,en i
--e,., - -, + -. - -ww<.-%
w w e e-e.-,,,.-iw m
ee--e s e
,,-.--.--merem->
eiv.,--,,--we e-,s+-
e
--w-
-+
t---s,-w-v,---
-,=++=v-e e-*--r m-e r-w***+rse"
or pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation).
1 Shoreham, LBP-82-82, 16 N.R.C. at 1162.8 (I)t is clear that opinion work product is entitled to sub-stantially greater protection than ordinary work product.
Therefore, unlike ordinary work product, opinion work prod-uct can not (sic) be discovered upon a showing of substantial need and an inability to secure the substantial equivalent of the materials by alternate means without undue hardship.
Egg Fed. R. Civ. P.
26 (b) (3).
In our view, opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and. extraordinary circumstances.
Ess Hickman v. Taylor, (329 U.S. at 511).
145 at 1160, auotina In re Murohv, 560 F.2d 326, 336 (8th Cir.
[
1977) (footnotes omitted).
See also In re Grand Jurv Investiaation, 599 F.2d. 1224, 1231 (3d Cir. 1979).
The information which Intervenor seeks is clearly opinion work product.
Intervenor in effect seeks _to have GPC's counsel identify those aspects of Ar. Mosbaugh's prior statements and i
testimony that make it, in GPC's counsel's view, susceptible to challenge.
Intervenor's counsel has Mr. Mosbaugh's prior state-ments and is capable of reviewing that material to identify its weaknasses.
There is simply.no justification for Intervenor's demand that GPC's attorneys disclose their thought processes and theories.
Intervenor's Interroaatory and Document Reauest No. 15 Interrogatory No. 15 asked GPC whether:Intervenor-has'ever-i been. subjected to any form of investigation by GPC or its coun-sel.
Third Discovery Request at.16-17.
Like its response to l
l-UF But see Comanche Peak, LDP-84-50, 20 N.R.C.
at 1474. L l
1 l
I J
Interrogatory 9, GPC objected to interrogatory 15 to the extent i
it applies to production of information and documents that are subject to the attorney client and attorney work product doc-trines.
GPC did note that GPC had perfor.med background investi-gations of all employees, including Intervenor, as part of the plant access requirements imposed by the NRC's regulations (Response at 44), for which GPC did not claim work product protection.ui Intervenor does not meaningfully address GPC's work product claim or, as required by precedent, make a showing of exceptional need.
As stated previously in this Answer, GPc's counsel has made inquiries, in confidential attorney-client communications and other work product investigations, to assess the accuracy of-Mr. Mosbaugh's factual representations.
Mr. Mosbaugh has made numerous allegations, dating back to 1990, and counsel's privileged assessment of these matters has been an essential part of its preparation for litigation.
Intervenor seeks to invade and disrupt-this very fundamental aspect of counsel's representation of GPC.
An example is counsel's inquiry into Mr. Mosbaugh's repre-sentations in his December 9, 1992 Amended Petition to Intervene.
The results of this inquiry, disclosed in GPC's December 22, 1992 o
U' GPC has indicated that it does not view the background investigations, conducted when Mr. Mosbaugh was an employee to grant-plant 1 access, as relevant to this proceeding, but_ is willing to produce them if Intervenor _ so desires.
Georgia Power company's Second supplemental Response to Allen M. Mosbaugh's Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documents'(July 5, 1994) at 2.
. -1
... -,,, - _, - _. - ~, -
. ___ ~..._._._ _
Answer, revealed that Mr. Mosbaugh made inaccurate or incomplete statements concerning where he had voted and where his family resided and worked.
Other inquiries by counsel or counsel's agentsW that have not been revealed retain their protected status.
Intervenor also states, "GPC implies that its investigations of Mr. Mosbaugh consist of the ' historically conducted-background investigations' required by HRC regulations" and accuses GPC of being misleading.
Motion at 7.
In its response CDC did not characterize privileged communications and inqul*
is background investigations associated with NRC
.One.
A straightforward reading of the response shows,,
er merely disclosed those non-privileged background checks that were conducted by GPC for Mr. Mosbaugh's access to the ; r ? ans' t. sat have no relationship to counsel's inquiries.
i
+
i Inquiries by agents are also shielded by the work product -
doctrine.
United States v. Nobles, 422_U.S. at.238-39
~15~
+-~+-rv y
e
-,.y m,
,,o,.--
f...m.,
w,, 3
,w
-w,--.,-m,,y,.
,c---....,....-,m.m.
r e.,-,
-rr
-.--e.
.4m.
III.
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Intervonor's Motion should be denied.
Ecspectfully submitted, G
~*
Lambef6ki' nn
'ROUTMAN SANDERS 600 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885 3360 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
David R. Lewis SHAW PITTMAN POTTS & T50WDRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 663 8000 counsel for Georgia Power Company Dated:
July 7, 1994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKETro NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
'94 JUL -8 p;p :a 7 l
)
(g g Docket Hos. 50-424-OMh(h.:,..
h'~![II)1 g, [,y[' S )@
In the Matter of
)
)
50-425-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
Ret License Amendment
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear) i Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Georgia Power Company's Answer to Intervenor's Motion to Complete Responses to Interve-nor's Third Set of Interrogatory Questions and Document Request,"
dated July 7, 1994, were served by express mail upon the persons listed on the attached service list, this 7th day of July, 1994 n Lamberski i
Dated: July 7, 1994 I
?
l
.. _ ~ _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
)
50-4 2 5-O LA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
Ret License Amendment
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLDP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3
_ SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Peter B. Bloch, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission ATTN: Docketing and Services Washington, D.C.
20555 Branch Administrative Tudge Mitzi A. Young, Esq.
James H.
Carpenter Charles Barth, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Office of General Counsel 933 Green Point Drive One White Flint North Oyster Point Stop 15B18 Sunset Botch, N.C.
28468 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C.
20555 Thomas D. Murphy Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
- Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Protection Commission Division Washington, D.C.
20555 Department of Natural Resources Michael D. Kohn, Esq.
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
Suite 1252 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Washi.'gton, D.C.
20001 office of Commission Appellate Stewart O.
Ebneter Adjudication Regional \\dministrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory USNRC, Region II Commission 101 Marietts Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
ROUTMAN SANDERS r,
. 7. 7.E." E f..*..'t.... ^.!... h.^.7,
^
Nation $nANe6 PLAJ A 600 Pt ACM1ht( E1Mt f f N E SLHit $P00 ATL ANTA GCOf1GIA 30306 #216 if tt PHONE 4D4 60$-3000 Fact #LE soa 606 3v00
.sOHN LAaAEttR$80 DIRECT 404 6BS 3%0 March 7,1994 VIA AIRBORNE EXPRESS Michael D. Kohn, Esquire Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, P.C.
517 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001 Re:
Georgia Power Company (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-474-OLA-3,50-425-OLA-3; License Amendment for Transfer to Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Dear Michael:
Last Thursday you informed me that Intervenor planned to file a motion to compel Georgia Power Company ("GPC") to produce all transcripts which GPC has prepared of 201 of Mr. Mosbaugh's tapes (Those 201 tapes are the tapes which the NRC determined, in Febniary,1991, were not relevant to its investigation of GPC's statements to NRC concerning diesel stans and which, as a result, the NRC returned to Mr. Mosbaugh. Mr.
Mosbaugh then made those 201 tapes available to GPC for copying in October,1991, in connection with the Mosbaugh v. GPC DOL proceeding. Intervenor retains the origina!s of those 201 tapes to this day.) I informed you that I thought GPC had produced to Inten'enor in this case all the transcripts of those 201 tapes which were relevant to the issues in this case (i.e., the diesel starts issue and the illegal license transfer issue). However, I promised to review our records and provide you a response today.
In June,1993, in response to Intervenor's First Request for Production of Documentz, dated May 4,1993, GPC stated a number of objections, including that certain requests
"(1) are overbroad as requesting 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." Georgia I
Power Company's Response to Intervenor's First Request for Production of Documents, dated June 2,1993, at p.1. Nonetheless, without. waiving any objections, in response to document request no. 42, GPC made available to Intervenor transcripts of pottions of approximately 50 tapes, li at 32 34.
l I have again reviewed transcripts of those portions of the 201 tapes which GPC prepared and which I believed might be relevant to the issues in this case. I have concluded that there are eight additional transcripts (Tape nos. 25, 28, 30, 34, 35, 39, 50 anc' 231)
TROUTMAN SA:NDERS
. u.= ~ u :..
=
Michael D. Kohn, Esquire March 7,1994 Pace 2 i
1 which are relevant to the issues in this case. Without waiving previous objections, GPC is voluntarily producing those eight transcripts to Intervenor. For your convenicace, copies of those transcripts are enclosed.
Very truly yours, C
s John 12mberski xc:
Charles A. Barth, Esq.