ML20072L021
| ML20072L021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1994 |
| From: | Joiner J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#394-15629 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9408310049 | |
| Download: ML20072L021 (12) | |
Text
N/sz9 u
24, 1994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 94 AUG 25 P5 33 Ecfore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1rF;c. of M5ETARY 00CKETi% & '~ wiCE
)
BRAHL.
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
)
50-425-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, )
etal.
)
Re: License Amendment
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERVENOR'S -
FOURTH INTERROGATORY AND DOCUMENT REOUEST I. INTRODUCTION Georgia Power Company ("GPC") hereby answers "Intervenor's Motion to Compel Responses to Intervenor's Fourth Interrogatory and Document Request" (hereinafter
" Motion"), which Intervenor filed on August 9,1994.
Intervenor's Motion relates to certain document requests contained in "Intervenor's Fourth Interrogatory and Document Request to Georgia Power Company," served on June 29,1994 (hereinafter " Fourth Discovery Request"). GPC provided its response to.the interrogatory portion of the Fourth Discovery Request on July 20 (based on an agreement by.
the parties), and the document request portion on July 29. Sec Georgia Power Company's Responses to Intervenor's Fourth Interrogatory and Document Request (July 20,1994) and Georgia Power Company's Additional Response to Intervenor's Fourth Interrogatory and 9408310o49 940824 h
gDR ADOCK 05000424
\\@O PDR;
l Document Request (July 29,1994) (hereinafter " Document Request Response").
Intervenor's Motion should be denied for two reasons. First, Intervenor's Motion is i
untimely. Second, GPC has already produced documents responsive to the Intervenor's document requests that are reasonably within the scope of permissible discovery and that are not subject to valid objections.'
II. DISCUSSION Having filed this Motion on August 9,1994, Intervenor has once more failed to comply with the NRC's Rules of Practice regarding filing deadlines. As delineated in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(f), motions to compel discovery are to be filed within 10 days after the date.
of the response. Intervenor's failure to meet this requirement warrants a complete denial of this Motion. This Board has already admonished Intervenor, on several occasions, for missing filing deadlines. On one such occasion, Intervenor's couriel replied "... we think what happened last week was extraordinary and as a firm we are committed to making sure that all these deadlines are completely fulfilled in the future...." Tr. 335. In Memorandum and Order (Good Cause for Illegal Transfer Discovery; Board Concerns), LBP 94-16, dated May 25,1994, the Board stated that future filing delinquencies would result in a refusal to consider the filing by the Board.11 at 8. Accordingly, because Intervenor's
{
Motion is untimely, the Board should deny it outright.
i r
' In some cases Intervenor's Motion seeks the production ofinformation which has already l
been provided to Intervenor and in several other cases Intervenor requests GPC to supply him with the Bates numbers of documents to facilitate his identification of those documents when, in fact, the documents are clearly identifiable.
.2-I k
---.e-,
v e-
In addition to the foregoing, GPC responds below to Intervenor's arguments in the Motion to Compel.
Document Reauest No. 6 Intervenor's Motion requests the Board to compel the production of all performance appraisals from 1988 to the present for nine individuals. Yet, Intervenor's Motion fails to articulate how these performance appraisals are relevant to the scope of permissible discovery as specified in the Board's Memorandum and Order (Scope of Discovery), LBP-94_, June 2,1994. Intervenor's position is that he is entitled to conduct a general inquiry into the character and competence of the nine identified individuals. Motion at 2-3. However, the Board's June 2,1994 Order defined the permissible scope of discovery as communications to the NRC addressed in the OI Report (Case No. 2-90-020R), or whether GPC told the whole truth to the NRC about its diesel generators.16 at 2-3. The personnel files of the named individuals is an inappropriate place for Intervenor to cast his fishing nets since they are not whhin the scope of permissible discovery. Moreover, six of the nine individuals either never had oversight responsibility for Plant Vogtle or are no longer employed by GPC or Southern Nuclear (i.e., Messrs. Beckham, Farley, long, Mcdonald, McCrary, and Meier). Also, i
while Mr. Woodard currently has oversight responsibility for Plant Vogtle, he did not have such responsibility in 1990 when the events at issue in this proceeding took place. With respect to Messrs. Hairston and McCoy (as well as Mr. Mcdonald), GPC reviewed their performance appraisals for calendar years 1990-93. GPC stated in the Document Request Response, at 2-3, that none of the performance appraisals it reviewed contain any reference to the diesel generator reporting issue.
Intervenor further takes issue with GPC's objection to the production of the requested performance appraisals on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Motion at 2. GPC believes this objection to be appropriate based on the general prohibition of discovery requests that will result in annoyance, harassment or embarrassment. Sec 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(c).
Document Request No. 8 Intervenor originally requested all deficiency cards for Vogtle Units 1 and 2 that related to the diesel generators. Intervenor's Motion states without support that this document request, which it now limits to the time period of 1988 to present, is not overbroad or unduly burdensome. Motion at 3. Intervenor is simply wrong. Deficiency cards for the time period 1988,1991-94 (and arguably 1989) are outside the scope of permissible discovery as delineated in the Board's June 2,1994 Order. GPC has made available to Intervenor the documents requested for 1989 and 1990.2 The identification and production of documents for the other time periods is unduly burdensome and expensive because of the large number of documents involved, Intervenor's expansive definition of " support systems,"
and the fact that documents from the 1988 time period would require manual review and identification. Intervenor's request to identify the Bates numbers of the documents made available for Intervenor's inspection on June 29,1994, because "it would be unduly burdensome to make Intervenor sift through 60,000 pages of documents in search of these 2 GPC's original Document Request Response indicated that production would not include documents for all of 1989. Since filing this response, GPC has identified and made available for inspection and copying (in the Atlanta offices of its counsel) the remaining deficiency cards for 1989.
i I
F documents..." is baseless. Intervenor has simply not reviewed the documents produced.
GPC placed these documents into a pocket folder labelled, "GPC's Response to Intervenor's Fourth Interrog. & Doc. Req. - Doc. Req. No. 8," and placed individual files into the folder labelled, " Deficiency Cards Related to Emergency Diesel Generators For 1989," and
" Deficiency Cards Related to Emergency Diesel Generators For 1990." Nevertheless, GPC identifies the Bates numbers for the 1989 deficiency cards as 065646-065716 and for the 1990 deficiency cards as 064856-065143.
Document Request No. 9 Intervenor originally requested GPC to produce all completed Preventative Maintenance ("PM") checklists, SCL-166, for 1989 to the present. Intervenor's Motion asserts that this document request is not overbroad in that the "past and present reliability of all the diesel generators is relevant to this proceeding...." Motion at 4. GPC disagrees.
What is relevant to the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding was decided by the Board in its June 2,1994 Order. PM checklists for calendar years 1991-94 are not relevant to diesel generator reporting statements made by GPC in 1990.
Intervenor further argues, without providing any support, that this request is not unduly burdensome because GPC can identify the checklists and they are readily available.
Motion at 4. However, the checklists are maintained on microfilm which is difficult to search and copy. Furthermore, over 500 requested documents were produced that cover the years 1989 and 1990. The process for identifying and copying these documents is unduly burdensome and expensive. The requested PM checklists are performed under the Vogtle Maintenance Work Order ("MWO") process. In order to fulfill this request, GPC would,
i
. -. ~.-
\\
have to identify each MWO that implemented the PM checklist, manually locate each MWO 1
on microfilm, and make a paper copy of each MWO from the microfilm. GPC estimates that the production of documents for the years 1991-94 will involve over 700 additional -
I documents. Intervenor's request to identify the Bates numbers of the documents made available for Intervenor's inspection on June 29,1994, because "it would be unduly
'l burdensome to make Intervenor sift through 60,000 pages of documents in search of these documents..." is baseless. Intervenor has simply not reviewed the produced documents.-
j GPC placed these documents into a pocket folder labelled, "GPC's Response to Intervenor's Fourth Interrog. & Doc. Req. - Doc. Req. No. 9," and placed an individual file into the folder labelled " Completed PM Checklist SCL-00166 for 1989 and 1990." Nevertheless, GPC identifies the Bates numbers for the checklists as 065144-065645.
i Document Request Nos.10 As with Intervenor's prior requests above, Intervenor's Motion requests GPC to identify the Bates numbers of the documents made available for Intervenor's inspection on June 29,1994, because "it would be unduly burdensome to make Intervenor sift through 60,000 pages of documents in search of these documents...." Once again, this assertion is baseless in that Intervenor has not reviewed the documents. GPC placed these documents into a pocket folder labelled, "GPC's Response to Intervenor's Fourth Interrog. & Doc. Req.
- Doc. Req. No.10," and placed an individual file into the folder labelled " Copies of Deficiency Cards 1-904)186,1-89-1316, and 1-89-1317." Nevertheless, GPC identifies the Bates numbers for the deficiency cards as 065717-065723.._,
. -~
(_
Document Request Nos. I1 Intervenor's Motion requests GPC to identify the Bates numbers of the documents made available for Intervenor's inspection on June 29,1994, because "it would be unduly burdensome to make Intervenor sift through 60,000 pages of documents in search of these documents...." Again, this assertion is baseless in that GPC placed these documents into a pocket folder labelled, "GPC's Psponse to Intervenor's Fourth Interrog. & Doc. Req. -
Doc. Req. No. I1," and placed an individual file into the folder labelled " Maintenance Work Orders 1-90-01513, 1-90-00899, 2-90-01136, 2-90-00964, 1-88-07746, 1-90-01514, 1 02991, and 1-90-01729." Nevertheless, GPC identifies the Bates numbers for the deficiency cards as 065724-065853.
Document Request No.13 Intervenor's Motion does not contend that this request is not overbroad. Rather, it requests that the Board review Mr. Shipman's notebook in camera. Motion at 6. The portions of Mr. Shipman's notebook which Intervenor seeks, which have not been previously produced, are for the time periods prior to March 20,1990 and after November 30,1990.
GPC has already identified and produced pages from the notebook which it believes could in any way lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. GPC does not object to an in camera review by the Board. GPC identifies the Bates numbers for the two pages produced from Mr. Shipman's notebook as 065854-065855.
Document Request Nos.15 Intervenor's Motion, at 6-7, requests GPC to identify the Bates numbers of the documents made available for Intervenor's inspection on June 29,1994, because "it would be -
W unduly burdensome to make Intervenor sift through 60,000 pages of documents in search of these documents...." As with the other similar requests contained in Intervenor's Motion, this request is baseless. Intervenor has not reviewed the produced documents. GPC placed these documents into a pocket folder labelled, "GPC's Response to Intervenor's Fourth Interrog. & Doc. Req. - Doc. Req. No.15," and placed an individual file into the folder labelled " Maintenance Work Orders Related to Cleaning / Inspection of Emergency Diesel Generator Air Receiver Tanks for 1990." Nevertheless, GPC identifies the Bates numbers for the maintenance work orders as 065977-065981.
Document Request No.17 Intervenor's Motion ignores GPC's objections, contained in the Document Request Response, that this document request is redundant, unduly burdensome and expensive, oppressive, and overbroad (beyond the scope of discovery). Document Request Response at 5-6. Rather, Intervenor chose to focus his Motion solely on the objections GPC made to Intervenor's Notice of Deposition of Kenneth Holmes; Paul Kochery; Kenneth Stokes; Tom Webb; Rick Odom; Skip Kitchens; Guss Williams; George Bockhold; James Bailey; William Shipman; Paul Rushton; Louis Ward; Cliff Miller; Mark Ajuluni; David Lisenby; C. K.
McCoy; George Hairston; R. P. Mcdonald; Joseph Farley; and A. W. Dahlberg, dated June 27,1994. Ses Georgia Power Company's Objections to the Decument Requests in Intervenor's Notice of Depositions, dated July 1,1994.
Intervenor's document request seeks five categories of documents related to 25 individuals. The categories are so broad and expansive that, in essence, Intervenor would have GPC duplicate prior document production efforts (which, to date, is approaching 70,000 8-
pages) so that the documents can be rearranged by witness and subject matter. GPC is not aware of relevant information responsive to this request that is not already contained among the numerous documents already produced by GPC. In order to comply with this request, GPC would have to review every document previously produced and attempt to link them to the 25 named individuals and then sort them based on the five categories delineated by Intervenor. Obviously, this process would be unreasonably cumulative and duplicative, unduly burdensome and expensive, requiring extensive manhours of effort with little or no demonstrable benefit.
Contrary to the representations of Intervenor's counsel (Motion at 8), GPC attempted to discuss the document request associated with the aforementioned notice of depositions but found Intervenor to be unwilling to narrow the scope of the request. Nevertheless, GPC had each witness identify and bring to each deposition those documents previously produced by GPC in this proceeding that were provided by the deponent. GPC also asked the deponents to bring relevant portions of additional personal documents if they contained information relating to the diesel generator reliability issue in this proceeding.
Document Request No.19 Intervenor's Motion asserts that " Licensee's objection to this request is not well taken." Motion at 10. However, Intervenor's argument is void of any other discussion l
which challenges GPC's objections that this request is unduly burdensome and expensive, oppressive, and overbroad so as to go beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Document i
Request at Response at 6-7. Further, GPC identified documents previously produced to Intervenor which GPC believes are relevant to the diesel generator reporting statements at 9
issue in this proceeding and which contain the information Intervenor seeks.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, GPC requests that Intervener's Motion be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/
/
Ja es E. Joiner ohn I2mberski TROUTMAN SANDERS 600 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 5200 Atlanta. GA 30308-2216 (404) 885-3360 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
David R. Lewis SHAW PTITMAN POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8084 i
Counsel for Georgia Power Company Dated:
August 24,1994 '
k DOCKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '94 E 25 P5 :33 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardEE Cp EcpylARY 00CKEllNG & 2RVICE j
)
BRANCH In the Matter of
)
Docket'Nos. 50-424-OLA-3
)
50-425-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, )
etal.
)
Re: License Amendment
)
(Transfer to Southern (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Nuclear)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copies of Georgia Power Company's Answer to Intervenor's' Motion to Compel Responses to Intervenor's Fourth Interrogatory and Document Request, dated August 24,1994, were served by express mail upon the persons listed on the attached -
service list this 24th day of August,1994.
(
10 i.
/
Gt Thomas L.' Penland, Jr.
/
TROUTMAN SANDERS Suite'5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 (404) 885-3471 j
l
F 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 g d.
50-425-OLA-3 (Vogtle Electric Re: License Amendment 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.
D)och, 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 Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Office of the Secretary Rockville, MD 20852 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.
C.
20555 James H.
Carpenter ATTN:
Docketing and Atomic Safety and Licensing Services Branch Board 933 Green Point Drive Charles Barth, Esq.
Oyster Point Mitzi Young, Esq.
Sunset Beach, NC 28468 Office of General Counsel One White Flint North Administrative Judge Stop 15B18 Thomas D. Murphy U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.
C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Director, Two White Flint North Environmental Protection 11545 Rockville Pike Division Rockville, MD 20852 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 Washington, D.C.
20001 office of Commission Appellate Adjudication One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 1
.