ML20073R719

Renewed Amended Objections to Interrogatories Directed to Util on Zack Issues & Renewed Motion for Protective Order. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20073R719
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/28/1983
From:	Provenzano V CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	SINCLAIR, M.P.
References
NUDOCS 8305040509
Download: ML20073R719 (7)

Text

- - _ - - . .

. .o gt) COI

.x DCiy$50 CS

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-.d, NIfCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS3 ION. '"*, '

% , g ~n1:17

- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING

• BOARD 4 ,

- . ~

~

In the Matter of: ) -

~

) Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, ) ~ , 50-330

) *

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 21. ) . Operating License

-~ ~

AMENDED OBJECTIONS TO INTER {t0GATORIES TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY',0N ZACK' ISSUES -

AND MOTION FOR PROTECT.IVE ORDER .. .

~

Applicant, Consumers Power Company,,'by,i'ts attorneys, has filed its M- ,. -

" Objections to Inters,ogatorie,s to Consumers _ Power, Company on Zack Issues-

~

and Motion for Protective Order", dated Decemb'e r l'0, 1982 (attached hereto as

~

Attachment I).- Applicant,-by its ,attorneysi hezeby renews those objections raised on December 10, 1982 and incorporates them by reference as though fully _

Tet forth herein','and pursuant to' Role 2.740b (b) raises'the additional objections 1

set forth below. In addition, Applicant rene,ws its December 10, 1982 motion ~

~

foraprotectiveorderrelievingitfro'~mansw[eringsaidInterrogatoriestothe extent, and for the reasons, set forth-below and in Attachment I (incorporated herein by reference). -

3 ,

- - . . . _ _ __ ~ Adc'itional. 0b jections

21. Identify all companies from which Zack received any supplies l or materials for which the stalus 'o~f approved' vendor was requi-re'd for nuclear projects. In each case, state the- dates during which'the vendor was so approved and the basis for the approval to provide the~ material in question. '

i O w o

4  %

8305040509 830428 PDR ADOCK 05000329 m Q PDR -

N y_

Q

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and requests information concerning the business operations of a

.x third party, which i,nformation is best obtainable from that party. Furth,er-

-w more, any such information in the possession of Applicant may not be comp *lete.

4 .

25. Paragraph 13 of this contention describes an incident involving a purchase by Zack from U.S. Steel. ! Provide access to all documents related to this incident. .

.s.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and impermissibly broad since the term "related to" is undefined,

~

therefore, leaving Applicant to guess at its bwn_ peril as to the extent of the request. .

36. . Identify any instances lii~which Mr. Leonard was fired from any position that he has held during his carebr and state the re'asons for that firing. -

~ -

Applicant objects t'o this interroga'toTy_on the grounds that th.e ..

information requested is nciI'har relevant nor, mat 4 rial -to- this contention, and'

. - .~

is not likely to lead to relevant or material facts. Furthermore, the

~

disclosure of this informatioh wou'ld be an'impeImissable invasion of Mr. Leonard's privacy. - -

~

Contention 8 (rewritten"as Contention.16)

~'

General Objections:

l. Applicant objects to Int +rroga'toriss 1 through 8, hereunder, to the extent that they are founded upon or refe,r to the "non-comp.1,iance report

_ A_ _ filed _bgZack Co. of Chicago" c neerning a po sible discrepancy between a shop record and a QA record (deal.ing with weldingf A search of Applicant's files indicates that no such "non-conformance report" was filed by Zack Co. Without

- ~.

further clarification from Ms.,Sinclair_, any answer by Appl'ic' ant would be m

^

9

. g 4.  %

a * * %

1 1

--g

based on speculation as to the document referenced by Ms. Sinclair, and any such answer by Applicant would be at its peril for guessing wrong.

4

2. Appli. cant objects to any Interrogatory. requesting documents or w

information "related to"'the incident or " report" referenced by Ms. Sinc l' air.

4 This request i's unduly vague and requires Applicant to speculate as to the meaning of "related", and.therefore any answer by A'pplicant would be at its peril.

~ Specific ~0bjections

4. Did the Agplicant have Any knowledge of this breakdown in welding QA before the non-compliance report.was. filed in Augost, 1982? -

Applicant objects to this Interroga, tor.y because the time frame

. imposed by refarence to "the non-compliance..rbpo'rt . . . filed in August, 1982" cannot be precisely determined for the reason 1s set forth in the General Objections No. 1, above. Therefore, any an.swer by Applicant would be p'artially based upon speculatign and place Applicant at risk for guessing wrong. -

u-

_u .~

5. If so, what action was 'taken by the Applicant?

~

Applicant objects t~o this InterrogatoTy for the same reasons set

~

forth in Objection to Interrogatory No. 4, above.

~ ~

6. If not', what action.was taken by.the Applicant after the

~

report was filed? -

~, _ ,

Applicant objects to this Interroga; tory for the same reasons set l forth in Objection to Interrogatory No 4, above.

1 r - - . - -

l _. .

'8 . Provide copies of _all docum'ents related to this,-incident.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory for the reasons set forth in General Objections No. I and No. 2, above. /

_ s

! 'e

. ~ . *

~

e * *==

e *m

.. ~

re

Contention 16 (rewritten as Contention 17)

General Objections 4

A. Applicant objects to In!;ergogatori,es N.o l through 4, hereunder, to the extent that they are founded upon or refer to the "Zack Co. non-4 conformance report filed in August, 19,82" concerning pos.sible discrepancies in '

" Travelers". A search of , Applicant's files i6dicat'es that no such "non-conformance report" was filed by Zack Co. Withour further clarification from Ms. Sinclair, any answer by Applicant would,be based upon speculation as to the document referenced by Ms. Sinclair, and any such answer by Applicant would be

~

at its peril for guessing wrbng. .

B. Applicant objects to any Interrog,atory

• requesting documents or

~

- .- ' .information "related to" the incident or "re.por.t.',' referenced by lis. Singlair.

This request is unduly vague and requires Applicant to speculate as to the meaningof"relatsd",andthe~reforeanyans'we'rdyApplicantwouldbeatits ..

peril. -

a,- .,

Specific Ob'ections j

1. What'peracentdge of th'e welds in the Midland Plants' HVAC

~

system would be affected by these 140 Travelers? Of those welds, which are now inaccessible? - -

Applicant objects; to this Interroga_ tory for the reason set forth in General Objection No. A, above. Furthermor'e ,', this Interrogatory is oppressive i

and burder.some because it requires a ". body co;unt",of all welds in the HVAC system in order to calculat:e a percentage, and such " body count" cannot be made

_ . ~

without incurring undue and substantial. expense,in terms of time and money.

- - - . . .. .~ - . ~

l 2. Over what period of- time were the 140 Travelers produced?

e --

Applicant objects to this Inter.rogatory for' the reason set forth in

~,

l .

General Objection No. A, above. , _

.- - ~-

, .. .- s e  %

(

~

N

3. Provide copies of all documents related to these i incidents.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory for..a the reasons set forth in w

General Objections No. A.and B, above. .

-+ ' 4. What actions have been taken ,as a re'sult'of this non-conformance report? .

i .

Applicant objects'to this Int'errop,atory for the reason set forth in -

.e.

General Objection No. A, above. _

CONCLUSION

~: _ , .

For all the forego _ing reasons and tIiose reasons set forth in Attachment I, incorporated lierein by reference, " Applicant respectfully requests

- that it be relieved from answering-Sinclair_ Interrogatories (Contention E

~

^

rewritten as Contention 15) No. 1, 2, 3,'4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, _

16,17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 36, and- 39;.-(Contention 8 rewritten as Contention 16) No. 41. 5, 6, and 8; (Contention 16. rewritten as Contention 17) .

No. 1, 2, 3, and 4; all to the extent to which Applicant has made specific object, ions to 'such' Int' err'6gatories. -

Dated: April 28, 1983 -

~ Respectfully' submitted, ~ ~

Vincent P. Provenza Q (P28673) r - -Attorney for Consumers ~ Power Company

~ 212 ,W. Michigan Avenue

"- ----- -Jackson, MI 49201 -

- (517) 788-0743

~

g e.

6 "

. , _. . ~

e ** %e A *%

-e 3

~s* . .

ATTACIDIENT NO. I

.I.

' ., r?

..v

',.*<,I.*- Decamber g j @

, .]

> DEC 13 ES2 UNITED STATES OF'AMERJCA C D & l.a ml NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .

In the Matter of: )

4 . ) Docket Mos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, ) -

50-330

)

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and -2)) - Operating License

+

OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES TO -

~

CONSUMERS. POWER COMPANY ON ZACK ISSUES ~

AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ~~

Applicant, Consumers Eower, Company, by its attorneys

~ .- . .

_ .__ _ and pursuant to Rule 2.740b(b) o f',t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s._ R u l e s, ,

. of Practice, objects to the September 20, 1982 "Interroga-tories to-Consumers

• Power Company jN Zack Is_ sues" propounde'd ,

by Intervendr Barbara, Sinclair. - Apg]:icant's objections are ,

both general (addressed to all 6f Sinclair's Interrogatories)

_and spbcific (ad'd5essed to individtml Sinclair Interroga-tories). In addition, pursuant to _ Rule 2.74 0.(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Applicant. requests the issuance of a protective order relieving it from answer-

• ing Sinclair's Interrogatories to,the extent, and for the reasons, specified in the fc1. lowing General Objection and Specific Objections. __ . ~

General Objection 7 .' -

Applicant tbjectsMo answering any of- the Sinclair

~

?

Interrogatories at thi.s time. ~ The subject matter of'- all of b e 4  %

e

. $ - - 4 3 -'*1 I V Q

these Interrogatories concerns the so-called "Zack issues."

4 These issues are , currently the subjectw of_an independent, investigation being conducted by the Commission's Region III. -At the outset of this investigation,* the Staff

' - . ~

requested that Applicdnt and, app'arently, the Intervenors in this proceeding refrain from initiating or conducting any discovery on the "Zack-issues" until the investigation was completed, in order that the. investigation could pro-ceed expeditiously- and unhinder,ed by the competing discovery efforts of the parties. Applican't and Intervenor Stamiris agreed ,to this request, while Intervenor Sinclair agreed _

~ ^

only to a sixty (60) day extension of discovery. (See

~~

letter dated October 7, 1982 from William D. Paton to Judges Bechhpe.fer, ,Cowan and Harbour).

As a result of ' -

this agree" ment, Applicant has.refba~iked from undertaking

^

. discovery'with resp.ect to the "Zach issues." Applicant believes that, under the-circumstances, it wo.uld be funda-mentally' unfair to. permit one party (Sinclhi'r) to engage

- ~ ~ ~

~ '

in discovery from the other parties who have acceded to the Staff's request, and consequently requests that it be

~ ~

relieved from responding to-the sincIair Interrogatories at this time. Applicant will ans;wer each Interroc_atory

~

j -. .

._ which is otherwise u'Ecb]ect[onable ~ promptly af ter the

~

-Region III investigation has.been_ completed and when all parties are free to conduct discovery. /

j i * .

, e6 =

. - ~

o  %

pu

Notwithstanding this general objection, in an 4

effort to obtain,an early, resolution**of. discovery disputes, Applicant sets'forth below the specific objections it has 4 to ce-rtain individual Sinclair Interrogatories.

~

Specific Objections -

+

1. What is the Applicant's position with respect to Sinclair Contention 6? -State all f acts and opinions and identify and provide copies of 'hll documents on which that position is based. , , . .

. Applicant objects-to ,the 3ertion of Interrogatory 1 which requests it to "[s] tate,all facts and opinions and identify and provide copies of.all documents on which that position is based" since that p.prtion of the Interrogatory would in effect require Applicant ko file its direct testi-

~

mony as part of an. ci during the <lisc_overy phase of this

.. t_.-

proceeding, and before Applicant has had an opportunity to

. conduct its own-tiscovery with respect to the allegations o# Contention 6. Quite clearly such a request is an improper

~

attempt by Intervecor'to establish unilate' rally a' procedural schedule for this case.

2. Identify all~indididuals whom th'e A'pplicant expects to call as witnesses with respect to this contention and identify all documents en which the Applicant expects to rely at the hearing with respect to this contention.

ApplicEnt_Qbjects to Int,errogatory 2 on the

-~ ~ .

g

~ Tounds that this Interrogatory,.'too, wguld require'Appli-cant to disclose a'lk its witnesses prior to the, time set by the Licensing Board for the silbmi_ttal of direct testimony g . M O

-M &

..  : -3g ~

p

• 4 g 4  %

e

@9

• and, more importantly, to identify. unequivocally while A

discovery ip proceeding (and a.t this,stagg,_before Applicant has been permitted to commence its own discovery) all thd-documents on which it may rely at the hearing. In effect,-

this Interrogatory impermissibly heeks to require Applicant to identify its trial exhibits before,it has been permitted to engage in discovery. --

3. Provide access for the purpose of examination and copying to all documents int (he possession or control .

, of the Applicant, its subcontractorr (including the Zack Company), or its agents, related to the performance of the Zack Company with respect to the Midland facility.

Applicant object's to that portion of this Inter-

. . . ~ . . . .. .- .

~

rogatory which requests it to pro' vide access to documents in

~

the po'ssession or cpntrol of "itsTsubcontractors (including -

, the Zack Company),jpr its agents, _ .. .. ' .' - It is well estab-

~

lished that'a party need only proviEe' access to documents within- its possession or control. , Access to documents in

^

the possession or cont'rol of third parties must be obtained by means-of a-subpo,ena duly issued pursuant to the Commis-

- ~

l sion's Rules of Practice. -

4. Provide access foi the purpose Ef examination and eqpying to all documents involving or reflecting cor-respondence of any sort between the Applicant or any of its agents or contractors and the Zack Company.

Applicant ob.jects_to th;at portion of'this Inter-

~

-~~- - regatory which requests . it to provide access to " doc 5:ments involving or reflecting correspon'dence of any sor,t between .,

. . . any of [ Applicant's] agents or contractors and.the 3 ._

l 4 g N

- - -. . ~

- ~

e 's

- = _

4 Zack Company" to the extent that such documents are not 4

within App.licant'.s possessi.on or control p

m_Furthermore, ,

Applicant objects to being requested to provide access to

-+

such documents within its possession or control which in-

- , m volve or reflect correspondence between any of its " agents" and Zack, since " agents" is an uridefined term and as such its use requires Applicant-to guess at its own risk precisely what documents are being requested. Applicant also objects

. . to producing all correspondence in Its possession or control between it or its contractors and Zack, since much of that

' corres1 cndence will not-be relevant or material to Sinefair 5

Contention 6, and therefore the_ request is improper.

~~

_6. What, position does Mr. Calkins hold at the Zack Comp 5ny? Please describe his duties, with specific -

reference te.any responsibility._he may.have for assuring .

compliance' wit'h NRC. regulations or Ygquirem'ents.

Applicant objects to that portion of this Inter-rogatory which'requ'ests" it to state the position and des-cribe the " duties" and " responsibilities" of'an individual employed by a separate corporate. entity. Obviously any such knowledge poss'ssede by Aprilicant may be incomplete.

Since.Mr. Calkins may be stibpoenaed for deposi_ tion and asked the same questions, requiring Applicant to respond is unduly burdensome _,and voyld rssult in unneces's' dry and

-deplicative discovery . -

g = =

• P ,

M ,

3 -

6 * "'8-

, .y e& w  %

. . s r

7. Identify and describe ayy efforts undertaken by Mr. Calkins to investigate QA problems at the Zack ccm-

-D4d- Mr. Calkins -

pany ever report related such-toproblems the Midland to thef-acility$icant ~ App or any of its agents or to the NRC? If so, when and under what circum-stances. What actions, if any,' did the Applicant, its i

4 agents, or the NRC take with respect to any such reports? '

Applicantobjectstotbatportio'nofthisInter-rogatory which requests it to describe (A) investigative efforts which wer"e undertaken by.an individual who is not

. now and never has hpen employed- by Applicant, (B) reports ,

'~

which may have been made by that' individual to someone other than Applicant, and (C) responsive actions taken by other

. ~

persons or entiti~es. ObviouslyJanysuchknowled,gepos[ses, sed by Applicant may be incomplete- Since Mr. C.alkins and those persons and entities.to whom reports _may have been made may ,

_ be subpoenaed. fog;de, position and aq3ed- the. same questic'ns , ,

requiring Applicant to respond is unduly burdensome and

, would res' ult'in"Ennecessary and duplicative discovery.

i 8. Identify and desc, ribe all major QA reorgani .

zations undertaken at Midland d.uring the life of.the pro-ject., Were any undertaken to correct improper QA documenta-tion? If so, please identify them. If not, please state what actions have been taken dur,ing the life of the project c.

~

to correct improper QA documentation. - ,

. Applicant objects to dhat . portion of this Inter-rogatory which requests it to describe "all major QA reor-

. n ganizations" at Midland. -Since the Interrogatory does not attempt to define what is d'onsidered a " major" reorganisation

~

1 -.

I in this context, Applicant-is required to guess et.its own

/ ~

risk precisely what i_nformationp.sbeingsought. _

In fact, e

~

.~ : ..': '

- _ -g- ,

- -~

f O

s.%, -e--,-- -, , - . - ,e-,, _~ - . - -- .---w - . - - . - - - - , . - - . - , - r- w

- -- ----o- --

it appears that the information requesjed is already within the knowledge of.Sinclair,-si-nce the.batie for Sinclair -

Contention 6 is the Howard Affidavit, which itself refers 4 to " major QA reorganizations" allegedly to correct " improper

~

_ ~ '

QA documentation." Applicant has not yet been permitted to depose Mr. Howard. Presumably, however, Sinclair does now know of the " major QA reor-ganigations" refe'rred to in the'

_ Howard Affidavit, .tince this Af f.idavit is the basis for

.- ~

=

Sinclair contention 6, and Applicant assumes the Contention was advanced in good faith, If Sinclair does not have such

.-~

knowledge,,theob'ious'sourceof*information' rela.t_ingt[o v , ,

the " major" reorganization is Mr. Howard, not Applicant, since it-is Mr. doward who made t,ld.s_ allegation. ,,

19. .De. scribe the trainia,7 required to qualify -

for the position ~lield by Mr. Howard.on November 18, 1981.

Who was responsible for determining wh. ether Mr. Howard had received ,the required t: aining?,

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory in'sof ar as it requests Applicant'to ide.n'tify the. training.that Zack, 7

. or other third party, may have required for the position held by Mr. Howard, and the_indipidual at'Zack.or other third party who was responsible }or determining wiiether Howard had received the required training. .Any such

_ . - ~~

knowledge possessed _by Appl,icant. n}ay be inesmplete.

Please idenEify all instances in which and-

11. -

positions for which' individuals were required, by the Applicant or any oftits agents or contractors,,_to sign a form attesting that they had_ received the training required for their posilions. -  %

.. - , . .i

• e

& 6

• e

~

. - ~

6 's a

• - ./ .

Applicant objects to the porgion of this Inter-rogatory which requests it-to-identijy "all instances" in which unspecified third parties " required" that a'certain ,

4 action be taken. Any such. knowledge, possessed by Applican't may be incomplete.  :

~

12. Was such a signed -form required of Itri Howard?

If so, please provide a copy.

.Applicantobjectsto(thisInterrogatoryinsofar

~

~ as it requests infobation wheth r _ parties otlier than

• Applicant " required" Mr. Howard to sign such a form. Any such knowledge possessed by Appitca'nt may be incomplete- ,

Moreover, it appears that the ihf'o'rMat' ion requested'by this Interrogatory is already within the knowledge cf Sinclair, - -

-t ~

since the Howard Affidavit, which'is the basis for Sinclair

.- g _

Contention 6, alfeges that Howard was required-to sign.such'

- a form. Again, Applicant assum,es that the Contention was

, advanced in good faith and that Sinclair has conducted at least a preliminary i.nyestigatio'n 'into the_ factual basis j for Contention 6. If Sinclair has not conducted such an investigation, the obvious,sourch of the ihformati.on re'-

s quested is.Mr. Howard, not -Applicant. -

13. Has the Applicant'or any of its agents or contractors ever-directed _an individual to sign-the form i

referred to in Question 11 -when the individual had not

- - . __ ___r_gceived the training.in question,? What actions.has the Applicant taken to assure _that this would never occur?

! Applicant objects-to the portion of .this . Inter-

\ . )

rogatory which requests it to. state whether ",its aghnts

[

l .- -g- -

. ~

! . - - s l - ~ .

d t

i or contractors" directed any individual,to take certain action. Any such, knowledge- possesse4by -Applicant may -

be incomplete. Moreover, " agents" is an undefined term 4 and th'erefore Applicant is required ,to speculate at its own risk as to the specific information requested by this Interrogatory. -

+

14. Plsase idenEify and provide copias of all reports meeting the description set out in Paragraph 5

. of this. Contention. , Explain thE reason for each QA

~~ -

deficiency discussed in each repart_.and the' actions taken by the Applicant throughout'th'e life of the pro-

< ject to assure that the deficienc.ies would not occur or

a. reoccur. In particular, identify each instance in which

. the " Attthenticity of the signatures" on any document _

related to the Midland QA progra y s,"questiona,ble_".for -

any reason, and explain the reason in each case. -

Appl.icant objects to kn4:errogatory No. 14 on-the grounds that it requests Applicant 50 identify, produce!

. . , ,. .- g- _ .

and commen.t.on "rEFports" which are identified only by -

.. reference.to.an Affidavit filed by Mr. Howard (which is

. the basis for Sinclair Contention 6), in which Howard i

refers,t,o " reports" which he "refiewedf" Since Applicant has not yet had an opportunity to conduct any discovery on Sinclair Contdntion 6, Appli.can't'is unaware which " reports"

~

! Mr. Heward "revicwed," and .cannoti therefore be-expected to identify, produce or answer substantive questions on those

, , ~

r " reports." Presumably, since ths Howard Affidavit is part

~ d the basis for-Sinclair Nntention 6 and Applicant' assumes

~ ~'~

I that Contention was 2dvanced- in good f aith, Sinclair, already

~

.?

knows what " reports" Howard refer-red to in his -Af fidavit.

1 .-

_.' ~

c _9.'; T s

- -- - ~

h *%

e

. ~

If Sinclair will identify those "repor,ps" for Applicant, Applicant will provide answer-s to relevant- Interrogatories concerning the' substance of those " reports."

4

15. Identify and provide, access for examinatiod and copying to all reports of the Applicant or any of its agents or contractors relating to improper modifications-of documents. - -

a.

Applicant objects to'that portion of this Inter-rogatorywhichrequestsittop[roducedocumentsnotwithin its possession or c'ontrol. ~ More ver, Applicant further objects to that portion which requests it to identify

, certain " reports of . - ..any o'f iis agents," since

~~ - '

" agents" i's not a defined term'and,'as'a result', 'the ~ ~

~

Interrogatory impermissibly requires-Applicant ..- -

to specu-late as to the identity of the ddc5ments it is requested- ~

~~

to identify. -

. 16. Identify all instances in which any employee of the Applicant; its agents or contractors, has been dis-ciplined in any way, including dismissal for failur'e to ,

implement Quality Assurance requ,ir_ements correctly and

~~

thoroughly. Identify any instance in which.any sort of disciplinary ~ action w'as considered but rejected, including particularly any. instances in which dismissal was rejected as a response to QA. failures. ..

Applicant objects to that portion of this Inter-rogatory which requests it -to identify "all instances" in which any employ _ee of unspeqified third parties -may have be,en disciplined -for certain reas,o'ns, and "any instance" in which those unspe ified hird$ parties " considered but rejected" such disciplinary action. Any such knowledge pressed by Applicant may be incosplete.

Moreover, m h e

- ~

- ~

- ~

Applicant objects to the scope of this Interrogatory insofar 4

as it reque.sts information mot connec,ted with work on or,at the Midland -Project. Finally, Applicant objects to the use

, of the undefined term " agents" in this Interrogatory. ,

17. P,rovide a copy of5the letter of December 12, 1981, from Bechtel to Zack related to quality assurance deficiencies. Explain precisely what is meant'by the term

" paperwork problem" to refer to- the deficiencies discussed. '

Did Bechtel consider the deficiencies to be in compliance with NRC regulations and requirements? Did the Applicant?

State the precise probability that Zack ordered correct materials, as referred to in the :Bechtel lettsr. What-

. . is the b. asis for this probabili,ty? What is the basis for Bechtel's opinion.concerning the " vendors' intent."?

Identify and provide any relevant documents.

. ~

Applicant objects to that portion of.t.hi.s Inter .

rogatory which requests it to (A) [e]xplain precisely" whatathirdpartymeantbyacer}inphraseinaletter ..

written by tha,t third partIy, (B} exglain whether a third' party cons'idered certain unidentified " deficiencies" to

~

• be "in compliance" ,with. unidentified NRC regulations and

" requirements" and (C) identify the " basis" f.or a third

-~

party's opinion concerning the~" intent" of'a'n unidenti-

~

fied fourth party. ,Suchinquir,ie[scanonlybedesigned ~ '

to elicit speculation, not prope(ly discoverable fsets, and are therefore improper.-- Furt'her," Applicant objects to the request to identify and pr, ovide unspecifiei "rele-vant documents." - Su$h a re_ quest obviously provides ,no guidanceastothe,shecificdocudentsrequestedandis

, s -

m -

i therefore improper. _ ,

/

1 ' -

y 46  %

. . - . ~

e  %

e

.. ~

20. Identify all document aydits performed by Zack for Applicants or Bechtel. In each case, identify the documents that Zack actua-lly revfewed and those that it did not. -

Applicant objects to that portion of this Inter-rogatory which reques,ts it to identify all de;ument audits performed by Zack for Eechtel, since such knowledge possessed e.

by Applicant may be incompleta. Moreover, the scope of this Interrogatory is impermissibly broad since it apparently requests the identification of-audi.ts which m'ay have bben performed other than in connection _with the Midland Project.

. Furthey, Applicant objects to _.

the' request that it " identify

~~~ # '

the documents Zack actually revieQdd and th'ose"that it'did'

~

~

not" since Applicant cannot possibly know the precise -

'~ ,~

identity of all such documents. '~

( ~

26.

IdEnt'ify all purchases from Delta Screw

. 2- -

Company by Zack Company. In esch case, identify the date that the. purchase was initiated..

. . . ~.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it requests informa.t'io'n concerning purchases in connection with projects other than the Midland Project.

31. Describe all_ actipns taken by Mr. Leonard with respect to information provided in confidence by Mr.

Howar.d. Identify every individual who was inf-ormed of

~

the substance of Mr. Howardd s information. Identify every individual who was told that Mr. Howard provided or was aware of the information._ _ , ~~~

Applicant objects _to th,o'se portions of this Interrogatory which~ request it tIo identify all individuals who may have been informed of_ or told ce'rtain information,

~.

since Applicant has no way of knbwing who may'~have been G h i _ , _. .

. - ~

I j _

x

• ~

f informed of or told such information b{ Mr. Howard or others. . . - . _ _ . .

33. 'Did Mr. Calkins, on or about April 16, 1982, tell Mr. Howard that Mr. Howard had betrayed him? If so,

, what -was the basis for that statement? If not, did Mr.

Calkins in any way discuss with Mr.'Howard the information that Mr. Howard,had provided to the Applic' ant or the fact that he had provided that information?

.e.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory in that it requests information concerrfing statements which were

~

allegedly made to M'r. Howar'd by' 'en_ individual-who is not now and never has.been employed by_ Applicant. Applicant

, has no,t been permitted to. initiate'-discovery on Sinclair -

'~ ~-

Contentiori 6, and thus has been'11nable ' to depo's'e 'sither-

~

~

Mr. Calkins or Mr. Howard, who are the obvious sources-of

~~

the information requested by this~ Interrogatory. Moreoyer,

( ~

the basis 'for' Siricla'ir Contention fis tlie 'Howard Affidavit,

, in which Howard alleges that such a conversation did occur.

' Since Applicant assumes that Sinclair Contention 6 is ad-vanced in good faith, Applicant'arso assumes that Sinclair

~

already has most of the information requested in this Inter-rogatory. _

^; - -

- 34. How did Zack, and;particularly_its president, become ' aware of the-allegations made'by Mr. Howard to Mr.

Leonard? Please provide a copy of the Zack memorandum denying the subs.tance of the all,eg'ations. Explain why Zack QA personnel were defiihd access to files without upper

_a~~ -

management permission. State precisely which upper-manage- '

^ T6nt personnel had controllof the files,.

r ,

~

Applicant; objects to the portion of_this_ Inter-rogatory which requires it t6 speculate on how Zack, and 3 -

.' ~ .- [ .

~

e *g a

Pe  %

a certain individual employee of Zack,4 became aware of certain information. -- - .- .

w

37. In light of Mr. Howard's apparent dismissal for revealing a serious quality assurance problem related 4 to the Midland facility, what assurance does any worker

, at the Midland facility have that h6-will,not lose hi's job if he reports a. serious QA problem?

Applicant objects to the rhetorical prologue to this Interrogatory and to7he c,onclusions that Mr. Howard's  ;

dismissal was "for,,revealirig a's,erious quality assurance _

problem related to the Midland, facility," and that there is or has been such a " serious,q'uality assurance problem."

= ' -

~

38. Describe in detati the basis for the Zack

~

Company pf esident's conclusion 'that' Mr'. Howardwa's "incom '

petent." Provide copies of hig entire personnel file and of all other documents of Zack Company or any other parti-cipant in the Midland project thatrelate-in~ any way to

' ~ - ~ ' '-

c Mr. Howard's performance.  !

~

." App'licEnt" objects to th.e[ portion'of this Inter--

i rogatory -which requests it to describe the basis for a

' conclusion. reached by an individual who is not now and never has been employed by Applicint. Applicant further objects to the request to. produce documents,which are not

~

within Applicant's possession 'o( control, e.g.r, Howard's

" entire-personnel file" and "all,other documents of Zack Company or any other participant."

, - ~

39. 5as .the pr~iis3. dent of Zack at any time con-

_ _ _ _~ ~ ^ cluded that Zack's OA performance'was " appalling"-or

~~~Ttherwise deficient?

~

Provide copies of. all documen'ts reflecting or related to ' tliose c_onclusions. In each instance, state the basis-for the conclusion._ - .,

)

h 4 y a w

• 4 e *

-y. . ~

_ - - ~

j e  %

I n .

. ~

- - . . - - . . . ._ , - - - . - - .- . - . , . . ~~-

4

/

Applicant objects to the portion of this Inter-4 rogatory which requests it.to- state whether a certain in-dividual who is not now and never has been employed by Applicant has ever reached a specific conclusion, and further to state the Basis for tliat conclu'sion. Obviously, only the individual who is allegdd ts have reached the stated conclusion-can respond a,dequately to this Inter-rogatory. , , l.

~

Conclusion _

, For all ,the foregoing' reasons, Applicant respect-

--' '~

fully requ'sts that (A) it be rdlTeved'from'answeEing any '

~

e of the Sinclair September 20, 1982- Interrogatories until af.ter theIRegion III *investigatioW-hss been completed and

~

~'

all partiels are fiee'.to conduct disJovery, and (B) it be 7

relieved from answering Sinclair Interrogatories 1, 2, 3,.

- 4 , 6. , 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 26, 31, .

. -33, 34, 37, 38 and 39, to the exteht to whicli Applicant has made specific o'bjections to such Interrogatories.

_ R'ejpectfully submitted, _

. __ ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE

- - n.

/~ f r

' 7

/. / / f' l 2 ~~

By. ' M/ / ,

-"' ~

~'

One op the- -

~~'

,' Attorneys for Appficant ISHAM, LINCOLN & B'E A L E - -- I ~+ .,

Three First National Plaza /

Suite 5200

~

~ '-

Chicago, Illinois 60602 2 ' -

(312) 558-7500 - - --

, Dated: December.10,,1922' J -

\ -

. - ~

1. • , e l

w

~i UNITED STATES OF'AMEIlICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE'THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 .

In the Matter of: . . )'  : Dooket Nos. 50-329 OM

) 50-330 OM-CONSUMERS POWER' COMPANY *

)~ . Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

-+ 50-330 OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David M. Stahl, hereby certify that copies of

_ ,_ _ Objections. to Intierrogatories to'C,onsumers Pow 9r Company on Zack Issues and Motion for P.rotective Order in the above-

.- m captioned proceeding have been se,r_ted,upon'all persons.shown~ ._

in the attabhed service list by deposit in .the United -States -

mail, first-class postage prepaid, this 10th~ day of December,

'- ~

. ' ~~ '

19'82. ~ . - -

/

f [ /

r1)*5HUXb.

~

(l. David .

M.-stahl

. l Isham, Lincoln & Beale -

Three First National Plaza i Suite 5200 -

__ _. . - ~

l Chicago, Illinois 60602 - -

• ~

+

- -- . __{J12 ) $58-7500 _ _ . ,

i .

m

~

~ '

l o e m e

=

• • e  %

/

SERVICE LIST 4

Frank J. Kelley,,Esq. - -

M. Steve Gadler -

Attorney General of-the 2I20 Carter Avenue .

State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Carole Steinberg, Esq.

4 Assistant Attorney General, Atomic Safety & Licensing Environmental Protection Div. ,

'9 Appea,1 Panel 720 Law Building -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Lansing, Michigan, 48913 -

. Commission ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

Cherry & Flynn -

Mr. C. R. Stephens Suite 3700 Chief, Docketing & Services Three First Nationa,1 Plaza . ." -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chicago, Illinois 60602 -

__ Commission -

, Office of the Secretary Mr. Wandell H. Marshall . Jashington, D.C. 20555 4625 Saginaw Road '

, Midland, Michigan. 48640 -

'Ns. Mary Sinclair .

-'- 5711 Summerset Street

~~

'~ .' CharlesIBechhoefer, Esq.

~

" "" Midland, Mi~'higan c '4864'O Atomic Safety & Licensing _

Board Panel - William D. Paton, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory - - SCounsel- for the NRC Staff '

, Commission ~-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

! Washington.,.D.C.~

20555 . - - Commission .

~~. ' .,_Rashington,

, D.C. 20555

, Dr. Frederick P. Cowan

_ 6152 N. Verde Trail Atomic Safety & Licensing Apt. B-125 . . - Board Panel

' Boca Raton, Flor'ida 33433 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~~

Mr. D. F. Judd ~

~ ' Washington, D.C. '

20555 Babcock & Wil~cox P.O. Box 1260 - - Ms. Barbara Stamiris Lynchburg, Virginia. 24505 , ,

5795 North River Road

~

~

Route 3' r.

James E. Brunner, Esq. Freeland, Michigan 48623 Consumers Power Company -  ; ,

212 West Michigan Avenue -

Dr. Jerry Harbour Jackson, Michigan 49201 Atomic Safety & Licensing

, Board Panel __

Lee L. Bishop, Esq._. _ . ,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

__;_' ~ Harmon*& Weiss - -

Commission - -

~ T725 #5061~ D.C.'

~

"I" Street, N.W. , ." Washington, 20555 Washington, D.C. 20006 _

- -= -

~

k

• e

• e

.- = . . - :

~

l

. s e t i i _

4

. - ~

UNITED STATES OF AFERI.CA - - -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISIION , ,..s. ,,,7 @ '.1 i

• b ,t .M

.+ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING

• BOARD .-/ -

-  : - ,x.1 7-@,hs In the Matter of: )

+

) Docket Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, ) . 50-330

) .

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 - ) -

Operating License ,

' ~

CERTIFICATE OF SE.RVLCE

~

I, Vincent P. Provenzano, hereby certify that copies of Amended ,

ObjectionstoInterrogatories,toConsumersPodehCompany_onZackIssues'and ef- __

Motion for Protective,0rder in the above captionect proceeding have been served, u '

upon all persons sh'own in the attached service fist by deposit in the United

~

States mail, first 2class. postage prepaid, this 2.8th day of April,1983.

- Vincent 'P. Prov . ano-Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Avenue  : _- + - --

Jackson, MI 49201 - -

' ~ -

(517)_.288s0743 ' _.

O M' '

• 4

• 6 g gg g h

. - ~

. *g

SERVICE LIST 4

Mr. Frank J. Kelley,,Esq. . , Mr. S,tev,e Gadler Attorney General of the

~

-21'!0 Carter Avenue

• State of Michigan St. Paul, MN 33108 Ms. Carole Steinberg, Esq.

. Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Environmental Protection Div. -

' Appeal Board 720 Law Building I U.S'. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. ,

Lansing, MI 48913 -

Washington, DC 20555

+

~

Mr. Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

Mr. Scott W. Stucky, Chief Docketing & Services

~ '

Cherry & Flynn ,

3 First National Plaza ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. ,

~

Suite 3700 - - - Office of the Secretary ~

1 Washington, DC 20555 Chic,ago , IL 60602 ,

Mr. Wendell H. Marshall -

Ms. Mary Sinclair 4625 S,. Saginaw Road , 3711 Summerset Street

. Midland, MI 48640

_. Midland, MI 48640 -

Mr. Charles ' Bechhoe fer , Esq. Mr. William D. Paton, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing - , . Counsel for the NRC Staf f Board Panel . .

. _U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. -JWashington, DC 20555 -

~

Washington, DC 205554 ,

~

6 - -

Dr. Frederick P. Co"wan -

Atomic Safety & Licensing

.6152 N. Verde Trail' .

Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

' ' ~ ~ '

Apt. B-125' Boca Raton, FL 33433 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Michael Miller, Esq. . .

_' ' Mr. Jerry Harbour.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale - Atomic Safety & Licensing 3 First National Plaza - -

Board Panel Suite 5200 .. U.S. Nuclear Re?,alatory Comm.

Chicago, IL 60602 --  : Wash'ington, sC 20555 Mr. D. F. Judd T_

Mr. Lee L. Bishop Senior Proje.ct Manager Harmon & Weiss The Babcock & Wilcox Company 1725 "I" Street, N.W. #506 P.O. Box 1260 2

~'

~ ~

Washington, DC20006

. ,,;.... Lynchburg, VA 24505 Ms. Barbara Stamiris ,

', Ms. Lynne Bernabei 5795 North River Road  ; -

Mr. Thomas D,evine ,

Route 3 _

Mr. kouis Clark Government Accountability Freeland, MI 48623 "

i Project of the Institute for Policy Studies

~

,' 1901 Q Str'ee t, N.W.

- 2 --

Washington, DC'20009

. - ~

e

- - . , ~ . , , _ --- - . . - . -, . -_ _ , . .

._ , , _