ML20082L200

Intervenor Supplemental Responses to Georgia Power Company First,Second & Third Requests for Interrogatories & Prior Requests for Documents.* W/Certificate of Svc & Svc List. Related Correspondence

ML20082L200
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/12/1995
From:	Kohn M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C. (FORMERLY KOHN & ASSOCIA
To:	GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
CON-#295-16627 93-671-01-OLA-3, 93-671-1-OLA-3, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9504210041
Download: ML20082L200 (8)

Text

__ _. . - - - _ _ _ __-__

MELATED 00flRESPONDENCE.

DOCKETED lj9MPC April 12, 1995 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  % IPR 14 P3 :02 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD grRr

~ , E I? ,'

Before Administrative Judges: DiiC Peter B. Bloch, Chair Dr. James H. Carpenter Thomas D. Murphy

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ) 50-425-OLA-3 g p_L., )

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

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) )

) ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3 INTERVENOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO )

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY'S FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD REQUESTS FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRIOR REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS Intervenor, Allen L. Mosbaugh, supplements all interrogatories filed by Georgia Power Company ("GPC") prior to the commencement of l

the hearing. Intervenor hereby incorporates all portions of his prefiled testimony as well as information contained in NRC OI l

Report 2-90-020R which provides additional information responsive j to a given interrogatory question. Intervenor attempts to identify which interrogatory questions are addressed in the prefiled

-e testimony and/or the OI report. Unfortunately, providing page numbers and otherwise cross-correlating this information is simply too burdensome.

I.

SUPPLEMENTATION TO THE FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORY OUESTIONS I

1. Intervenor reviewed tapes to which stipulations were sought by any party. Intervenor has reviewed other tapes searching for segments which Intervenor has requested stipulations and has otherwise reviewed portions of other tapes.

fDR G

N,

1 1

1 l 2. No additional copies of tapes were made following the response previously provided.

4. No.

5. Intervenor objects on the basis of attorney work product.

Licensee has previously refused to provide Intervenor with transcripts of tapes.

6. The tapes were made publicly available and Intervenor is not able to identify all persons who have reviewed, transcribed or listened to tapes. Intervenor objects to identifying any tapes reviewed in preparation of the hearing on the basis of work product privilege.

7. All such documents known to Intervenor were produced in l

discovery. NRC may have also produced documentation response to this request . Intervenor objects to listing such documents as to do so would constitute an undue burden.

8. Sie response to No. 7.

9. All such recordings are in the possession of GPC. review of i the tapes to identify such communications is too burdensome a

task for Intervenor to accomplish.

l

10. In addition to persons previously identified, other persons Intervenor has had discussions include: Daryl Hood; Oscar ,

DiMaranda; Carolyn Evans; Charles Barth (all of whom are with l l NRC) ; persons attending depositions (including the deponents); l and to some extent communications with Messrs. Leo Norton, Dave Williams, Bob Watkins; Patty Walker; and William Striker l from NRC's Office of the Inspector General. Intervenor has also had limited communications with Glenn Carol (concerning a Board Notification); Marvin Hobby; Johan Ritter; Frank l

Timmons; a reporter from an engineering publication (Intervenor cannot recall her name). Intervenor has no l independent recollection of communications with other persons.

l There may be other arts or individuals which Intervenor can no longer recollm. . Intervenor would have had passing conversation with others generally related to the status of the case or other such generalities. Any and all facts discussed would be contained in prior written communications between Intervenor and NRC that were previously made available to GPC, and facts set forth in Intervenor's Phase II prefiled testimony.

l 11. All such documents were previously provided to GPC.

12. See Intervenor's pretiled testimony.

13. Sgq Stipulated transcripts for tapes Nos. 57 & 58.

2 l

i

.. 1

14. Egg Intervenor's prefiled testimony..

15. Egg Intervenor's'prefiled testimony.

17. Egg tape segments identified in Intervenor's prefiled-testimony, prefiled testimony filed by GPC and tape segments identified in the NRC OI report.

18. All persons deposed by Intervenor during the course of this proceeding; all persons questioned by NRC 13 I ; persons identified as participating in any tape transcript identified in No. 17 above; participants to the NRC . ITT and OSI inspections; persons identified in Intervenor's witness list.

19. Other than himself, Intervenor currently has not identified experts who he will call to testify at the hearing.

20. Mary Jane Wilmoth and other persons associated with the law firm of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto.

21. Egg Depositions of witnesses who testified during the Phase I hearing; Intervanor's Phase I post hearing brief and the hearing record for Phase I.

22. Egg Intervenor's prefiled testimony; NRC's OI report; and the response to No. 21.

23. Egg response to No. 22.

24. Egg response to No. 22.

l 25. Egg response to No. 22.

26. Sgg response to No. 21.

27. Egg response to No. 22.

28. Sag response to No. 21.

29. Egg response to No. 21.

30. Egg response to No. 22.

31. Egg response to No. 22.

, 32. To Intervenor's knowledge, all such documentation has been i produced to GPC by Intervenor and/or NRC.

33. Egg response to No. 22.

34. Egg response to No. 22.

3 l

i 1 1

35. Egg response to No. 22. l l

36. Egg response to No. 21. j l 37. Egg response to No. 21.

38. E19, response to No. 21.

39. .gga response to No. 21.

40. Egg response to No. 21.

41. Egg response to No. 21.

42. Egg NRC OI report and Intervenor's prefiled testimony.

43. Egg response to No. 22.

l

'II.

SUPPLEMENTATION'TO THE SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORY OUESTIONS

1. Since . creating the six page document referred to in this interrogatory question, Intervenor has performed additional analysis and has conducted discovery which has led to the unearthing of additional facts which are set forth in Intervenor's Phase II prefiled testimony. To the - extent Licensee seeks new information, please see Intervenor's Phase II prefiled testimony and the NRC OI report.

2. Since creating the document referred to in this interrogatory question, Intervenor has performed additional analysis and has conducted discovery which has led to the. unearthing of additional facts which are set forth in Intervenor's Phase II prefiled testimony. To the extent Licensee seeks new information, please see Intervenor's Phase II prefiled i testimony and NRC's OI report.  !

3. Since creating the document referred to in this interrogatory question, Intervenor has performed additional analysis and has conducted discovery which has led to the . unearthing. of additional facts which are set forth in Intervenor's Phase II prefiled testimony. To the extent Licensee . seeks new information, please see Intervenor'e Phase II prefiled testimony; NRC OI report; and tape recordings.

4. Since creating the document referred to in this interrogatory question, Intervenor has performed additional analysis and has  ;

conducted discovery which has led to the unearthing :f i additional facts which are set forth in Intervenor's Phase II prefiled testimony. To the extent Licensee seeks new l

l l

l

l. .

information, please see Intervenor's Phase II prefiled testimony; NRC OI report; and tape recordings.

, 5 . a . E.p_q Tape transcripts 57 & 58 and Intervenor's prefiled testimony.

5.b. Such communications are contained in tape recordings made by Allen Mosbaugh which are in the possession of GPC.

5.f. After completing depositions and obtaining documents in this l proceeding from GPC, Intervenor concludes that the start information contained in the original draft of the COAR was not provided by Cash. Intervenor's knowledge as to how this data was compiled is set forth in his prefiled testimony.

5.g. Yes. Slides of diesel starts were prepared and someone made the decision to cut the slides from the presentation. The decision to cut the slides indicates someone's altering the accuracy of information GPC should have provided NRC.

6.a. The conversations are contained in tapes made by Intervenor.

l 6.b. S.qa tape recordings made by Intervenor.

6.c. S_qa prefiled testimony of Intervenor, including conversations

( of GPC employees questioning the accuracy of the LER.

6.f. In addition, Intervenor argued with Shipman and Aufdenkampe l that a definition of the comprehensive test program (i.e. , the ending point of the comprehensive test program) had to be identified in order to verify the accuracy of the statement.

This conversation occurred af ter Intervenor advised corporate that the prior draft language constituted a material false statement.

6.g. Intervenor's information was limited to the conference call in

! which Bockhold and McCoy are known participants, as documented I in tape 58.

l 6.h. Intervenor's understanding of GPC's definition of " subsequent l

to this test program" was based on Bockhold's and McCoy's statements to the effect that the 18 and 19 starts from the slide formed the basis for the number of starts identified in the LER. Intervenor had already provided corporate with specific information demonstrating that the information contained in the April 9th slide presentation, with respect to the number of starts, was false.

l l 7. See Intervenor's prefiled testimony.

1 5

l i

l l 4

l

12. All actions on the part of Mr. Aufdenkampe known to Intervenor are contained in transcripts of tapes 57 & 58 or elsewhere in tape recordings made by Intervenor. In addition to the facts previously set forth, Aufdenkampe told corporate the numbers in the 4-9-90 COAR constituted a material false statement.

13. _Sig Intervenor's prefiled testimony and the NRC OI report.

14. Additionally, during the course of Aufdenkampe's deposition he admitted that the LER language was never verified with respect  :

to the comprehensive test program.

l

15. Sag Intervenor's prefiled testimony. l 18.d. S.gg Intervenor's prefiled testimony and the NRC OI report.

18.g (1) In addition, during his deposition, Aufdenkampe stated that, with respect to the comprehensive test program language, he never performed a verification.

18. g (2 ) Comments responsive to this request are contained in the l stipulated transcript of tape No 58.

! i i 18. g (3 ) GPC controls the relevant GPC witnesses. l III.

SUPPLEMENTATION TO THE THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORY OUESTIONS

1. S_qa Intervenor's prefiled testimony; NRC OI report.

2. See above at Fist Set of Interrogatories, response No. 10.

l l

3. Sag below-stated response to Document Requests.

4. Sag below-stated response to Document Requests. l l

S. See Intervenor's prefiled testimony and his Phase II witness list.

6. No one other than persons currently emploted by Kohn, Kohn &

! Colapinto.

! IV.

l DOCUMENT REOUESTS In Orvenor is unaware of additional documents responsive to any prior document request that: 1) was not the subject of a i

previously stated objection;.2) was not previously made available ]

i by Intervenor to GPC; 3) was not previously made available by NRC '

6 l l

i

j.. .

f 1

to GPC; 4) was not previously produced by GPC in discovery; or 5) -

~

l 'is not a deposition ~or tape transcript in the control or posession of counsel (production of these documents appears to be covered -

under the work product doctrine).

Respectfully submitted,

&V J Michael D. Kohn KOHN, KOHN-AND COLAPINTO 517 Florida Avenue, N.W.

Washington,. D.C. 20001-1850 (202) 234-4663 Attorney for Intervenor l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,

1 I hereby certify that the above document has been served on the persons listed in the .ttached service list on April 12, 1995 by first-class mail (or by facsimile on persons indicated by ,

" * " L- 1 ll k A w / b k 6 Mhry/Jfhe' Wi'Imoth ' ' ' '

KOHN,/KOHN & COLAPINTO, P.C.

517 Florida Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 234-4663 C:\ FILES \301\!NTERR.SUP 7

/

.. o. .

i DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

J ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '

% APR 14 P3 :02

)

In the Matter of )  !

F SECRE TARY

) Docket Nos. 50-42  :

$ &MRWCE I

! GEORGIA POWER COMPANY -) 50-42  :'l A lANCH 11 Als, ) I

) Re: License Amendment .

o (Vogtle Electric Generating ). (transfer to Southern Nuclear) )

Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2) ) -j

) ASLBP'No. 93-671-01-OLA-3  ;

SERVICE LIST l

'l i

• Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch, Chair James H. Carpenter l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 933 Green-Point Drive l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oyster Point j Washington, D.C. 20555 Sunset Beach, NC 28468 l 1

• Administrative Judge

• Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Thomas D. Murphy l Office of General Counsel t Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. N.R.C )

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

Washington, D.C. 20555 l l

Office of the Secreta #Y rgest L. Blake, Jr.

. , David R. Lewis l Attn: Docketing and Service SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TROWBRIDGE Washington, D.C. 20555 l 2300 N Street, N.W.

l Office of Commission Appellate

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

301\ Cert.Lst r _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ , _ ___. _ __ ___ . _ - . _ . . ,