ML20098A882

Confirms That J Flint Will Not Be Appearing at Disposition Since J Flint Out of Country & Not Expected to Return by 841115.Author Compiling List of Documents & Interrogatories for Motion to Compel.Related Correspondence

ML20098A882
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/20/1984
From:	Bernabei L GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To:	Blake E SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
References
SP, NUDOCS 8409250293
Download: ML20098A882 (6)

Text

. . . .. . - . -

=

a b qquTED C"-cyCMDM s GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

>2 1555 Connecticut Awnue, N.W., Seite 202 D0tKETE9 =

' usn; ~

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 HAND-DELIVERED 84 SEP 24 P1:15 i September 20, 1984 -

EF = -

00CXtilN'.i & OV! f. -

BRANCM _

Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire -

s Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge r 1800 M Street N.W. ' ', '

s -

Washington, D.C. 20036 '

~1]!..'..;Q,s.

6

Dear Ernie:

First, I would like to confirm that John Flint will not 1-be appearing at his deposition since, according to the Babcox and Wilcox attorney, Mr. Flint is currently out of the country and is not expected to return by the time of the hearing, now scheduled to commence on November 15, 1984. His attorney is prior to November 15, 1984. Please inform me asStates checking to determine if he will be in the United to whether or anytime not you will object to his deposition being taken at some time '

outside the discovery period, but prior to the hearing date if Mr. Flint is available only during that time period.

Second, as you suggested when we spoke this morning, I am compiling a list of documents and/or interrogatories for which .

I intend to file a motion to compel in the event our good faith  :

negotiations do not lead us to a mutually agreeable settlement.

I understand from conversations held with you the evening "

of September 17 after the prehearing conference that you will not object to my filing a motion to compel by September 21, for those documents and interrogatories whose response depends on documents produced in Washington on September 11, 1984. I understand from my conversation with you and Mr. Trowbridge today that you will not object to my filing a motion to compel _

regarding those interrogatories which I believe should be more fully answered by the same date, even though GPU's response to those interrogatories did not rely on document production.

Specifically, I would like a more specific response concern-ing the following interrogatories: ,

Interrogatory No. 2 The interrogatory requests a description of all lines and methods of communication between the NRC and GPU. I believe at a minimum that description should include a description of the following: the place from which and to which the line or method of communication runs; the time at which it was installed if installed or instituted at some time on March 28 or March 29, 1979; and the length of time it existed for those two days, that is, for a portion of the day or the entire day.

8409250293 840920 .

PDR ADOCK 05000289 C' A ')3

{

G PDR SU2

7 A Prgo'Two E. Blak3 Letter-September 20, 1984 Interrogatory No. 4 The interrogatory requests a description of all lines and methods of communication between the NRC and B&W. I believe that description should' include at a minimum a description of the place from which and to which the line or method of communi-cation runs; the time at which it was installed if installed or instituted at some time on March 28 or March 29, 1979; and the length of time it existed for these two days, that is for a portion of the day or the entire day.

Interrogatory No. 5 The interrogatory requests a. description of all lines or methods of communication between GPU and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That description should include the information listed above regarding Interrogatories No. 2 and 4.

Interrogatory No. 6 The interrogatory requests a description of all lines or methods of communication between GPU and B&W. That description should include the information listed above regarding interrog9-tories 2 and 4.

From my discussion with you and Mr. Lewis last night, I Lunderstand that you may be able to determine if there were

. dedicated phone lines to which additional lines were added during March 28 or March 29,'which would aid in answering these interrogatories.

Interrogatory No. 12 The interrogatory requests a description of all alarms actuated by the pressure spike.- That description should include a description of whether the alarm was a light or sound alarm and the location of-the alarm in the control room.

Interrogatory No. 13 GPU has produced 20 volumes of documents to respond to this interrogatory. The specific documents which I would like are any charts or graphic representations of the pressure spike which were created or made on March 28, 1979.

Interrogatory No. 15 GPU has answered this interrogatory by providing Mr.

Dieckamp's knowledge and information about the May 7, 1979 visit of the Subcommittee to TMI-2. GPU should provide all  ;

information under GPU's possession and control, which includes the information and knowledge within the possescion and control of current and former GPU officials, employees, and attorneys.

1 I

_ _ _ _ _ . _ __u - -_ __ J

Pdge Throo .

_ E...Blcko'Lottor

' September- 20, 1984 4

y-

,- 5 Interrogatory No. 16 j" ..

.GPU hap. answered this interrogatory by.providing Mr.

.Dieckamp'sJknowledge and information concerning communications-to and ; from Mr. ?Dieckamp. on March 28 to-March 30, 1979. .GPU (is1underlan obligation to provide .all information within GPU's spossessioniand~ control concerning these communications, including Lthat information within the . possession and control of all current

'andLformer-'GPU officials, employees and attorneys.

.Also,~GPU has. failed to fully. identify.the communications pursuant to'the instructions for the interrogatories. TMIA is interested primarily~in the following with regard to the communi-cations identified in' response to this interrogatory:

(a) the purpose of each communication;

-(b)- . the1 persons who participated in each such communication and the nature or substance of his/her participation; (c) the exact time,';date and location'of each communication; and (d) identification of any documents which recorded,

-mentioned, or referenced in-any way.this communication.-

-Iniaddition,'the interrogatory. requests information as.to any person toiwhom.information was transferred subsequent to the time of communications'between.Mr. Dieckamp'and others.

Interrogatory No. 28-GPU's response toLInterrogatory No. 28'does not provide Mr. Dieckamp's knowledge or.information concerning identification of"the. persons lwho instructed Emergency Team personnel to cease the depressurization1 strategy and begin a repressurization

strategy..:Therefore, GPU's response contained'in Licensee's ~

' Supplemental . Response to TMIA's First Set .of Interrogatories is

nonresponsive.

Interrogatory No. 34 GPU's response-to Interrogatory"No. 34 only provides Mr.

-. Dieckamp's knowledge or information about conversations between himiand Mr. Miller, Mr. Herbein and Mr. Kunder on March.28,

1979..GPU is under an obligation to provide the information and

, knowledge within GPU,'s current and former officials, employees and. attorneys' possession or control.

' Interrogatory No. 37 f1 - GPU has ,not : responded to Interrogatory No. 37.

p Interrogatory No. 39

~GPU has failed to answer the interrogatory fully in that there is=no-answer to-the question of the details which Mr.

a r - I

.n~- - ~ . . . , , . , - --n-n--.-.,----...,.-.~.-.n,-.., ,,.n,,n.mn,...m--,..menn .__.,-,-w,-nw

,n-n.._,.m--,m,n

', PEga Four E. Bltko Lattar

. September 20, 1984 v ,

Miller did not communicate to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania au thorities.

In addition,. GPU has only answered the question as to Mr.

Miller's knowledge or information concerning ~ this conversation.

GPU is'under an obligation to answer the question with regard to all information and knowledge within the possession or control-of GPU's present or former officials, employees or attorneys.

Interrogatory No. 42 GPU has responded that it was not aware of any containment checks made within four hours a,fter the occurrence of the pressure spike. .However, -GPU has acknowledged in response to Interrogatory No. 43 that at 2:05 p.ru. on March 28, 1979, a measurement of radiation was made "around Unit-2 Ibc bldg." It appears that this is the type of " containment check" which Mr.

Chwastyk'and Mr. Rogers were referring to in their statements, referenced in GPU's response to this interrogatory.

GPU is obligated to supply the information requested by the interrogatory with regard to this radiation measurement.

Interrogatory No. 43 ,

GPU has stated that it does not have a record of the individuals who perforged the radiation measurement described in. subpart (e) . GPU is.under an obligation to provide to the best of its knowledge information identifying those individuals who were in'a position to perform such measurements. Since GPU

'has produced the radiation measurements it is under an obligation to inquire of those employees in the TMI-2 control room at that time whether or not they can identify those individuals.

Interrogatory Nos. 44, 45, 46 and 47 GPU has stated Mr. Dieckamp's knowledge and information in response to these interrogatories regarding misstatements and inaccurate'etatements in his mailgram to Congressman Udall. GPU is under an obligation to provide _all information and knowledge within the possession'and control of all GPU current and former officials, employees and attorneys.

Interrogatory No. 48 GPU has stated Mr. Dieckamp's awareness of the substance of the;I&E interviews and not the corporation's knowledge or

-information. GPU should supplement its answer to include information concerning the awareness of all GPU's current and former officials, employees and attorneyes concerning these interviews.

p j

_^~

?POgi Five JE.-Blaks Letter-

September 20, 1984-C e

Interrogatory No. 51

GPU ~ has _ failed tx> answer the last portion of the . interroga-

' tory requesting'information regarding-identification of all per-

.sonsito.whom such~ notes, memoranda, minutes or other documents were distributed.- .TMIA's. review of the documents. produced in

~

response to Document-Request No. 11 indicates that the documents

do~ not provide that information.

Interrogatory No. 52 J e GPUzhas responded to this interrogatory by stating Mr.

Dieckamp's knowledge and information concerning the purpose _of the :mailgram and the persons _ Mr. Dieckamp . consulted prior tx)

sending the mailgram. GPU is under an' obligation to provide all Linformation and. knowledge ~within the possession or control of GPU's current andiformer officials, employees'and attorneys.

Interrogatory No. 58 GPU has responded by stating Mr. Dieckamp's knowledge or information concerning_Mr. Dieckamp's knowledge on May 8 and-19, 1979, of the reactor. conditions and events occurring on March 28, March :29, and March 30, 1979. .GPU is. obligated to provide.

. all'.informationland knowledge concerning Mr. Dieckamp's know-ledge-'on those dates within1the possession-and control of GPU's current and former officials,^ employees and attorneys.

In addition,-you provided me with certain_so-called supple-mental responses-for most of the 19 individuals who answered in response .to questionnaires distributed to them that they, had known that a hydrogen-explosion had occurred on March 28, 1979 ion that date.. However,-these responses are in the-form of a ,

letteri from GPU counsel and are nct statements of the individuals l

- for which there are affidavits. I request ~that you.make such

- a formal; supplementation of GPU's response to_TMIA's First Set ofLInterrogatories if it'is to have any legal _ weight in these proceedings.

In' addition,.with respect-to a number ofxdocuments produced

- in' response to TMIA's First Set of Interrogatories, you have-failed ;to. identify the documents as required by the instructions to the interrogatories. In particular, TMIA requests this

information with regard to this class of documents:

(a) the document's date;

~(b)~ the document's author and his/her business affiliation, presently and at-the time the document was prepared;

-(c) identification of all persons ~to whom the document was distributed; and (d)- the general. subject _ matter of the document.

I'have not completed a full review of all~ documents which should be so identified. However, at a minimum this information a

Y . ;:

1 (Paga Six

'A- LE. Bltke Latter- ,

' Sep tember- 20,-1984 .

r 3

-s.

s t, . ^

'should be provided for all documents which do not otherwise JF providesuch information on their. face, which are responsive f

to~TMIA's First Set of Interrogatories. This would include, of; course, most handwritten documents which are not identified asshandwritten documents authored by a particular GPU or Met-Ed

• ' official or attorney.- Specifically, this would include all those

logsland records' listed specificallyfin my letter to you of September 17;11984'., I believe from our conversation yesterday tiu evening you1are now fully familiar with these documents.

In addition,; I understand that for at least one . of those

! documents, you' do not: at this time know why the document stops oatfl:40 p.m.1 .I. suggested that given that the document appeared

'to'be part of a. set of. documents produced at a prior time, you-97 ' ""

- could attempt'to identify the documents through that production.

!If that- cannotE be:done, I ' request that you make the original of egb that document available.. The particular document to which'I am y

referring appears as item 4 on page two of my letter.

V

, Finally, I am requesting.at.this time documents identified by your paralegal as documents. referenced in GPU's responses which were going to be produced but which I have not yet

. received.= These documents include the following:

(a)~ thermocouple data.for March 28; and (b) documents which Mr. Lentz identified in his question-naire a's relevant'to-the issues raised in the' question-E U .naise.

In addition, I unde'r stand that GPU attorneys have identified

" Mr. Harbin and Mr. Orlandi's document notLto be relevant to the issues...in thisEproceeding. Since the two individuals involved s ' appeared to have identified.the documents as related to the questions posed on the ques'tionnaire, I request an-identifica-

_ tion of the-documents.

. . Is look forward to meeting with you and Mr. Lewis this eveningso

thatweca(nworktowardresolvingourdifferences.

n Sincerely yours, i

t ss( '*N (6 G hpj Lynne Bernabei cc: Service List! - ,

./^

s .

5E 4

. .k

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