ML20106B660

Responds to Re Availability of Documents in Discovery Room.Objection to Characterization of Discovery Process Expressed.Info Re L Bernabei Document Reproduction Requests Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20106B660
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	10/22/1984
From:	Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Bernabei L GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
References
CON-#484-656 SP, NUDOCS 8410230401
Download: ML20106B660 (15)

Text

(*7

, gEtAIED coRomPONDENCE m::.

SHAW.'PITTMAN, PoTTS & TKdR$lhlDGE A PARTuam.mte or poortssaossAL ComponATeous 6800 M STREET. N, W.

~

WASHINGTON. O.C.2$hh6 hhf 23 blt 21 mtCOP ta TruDt 3 is

u. wom>

mo=>.n..... u....

c^^* '"a"'aa-October 22, 1984,,_

stAPIFAJE 80o Laoa>8334073

.wom.u-ioco watTEn S 06mtCT DIAL NUse.Em (202) 822--1084 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company (Three' Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-289 $

Dear Lynne:

This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1984.

I am compelled to observe at the outset that its tone (e.g. your willingness to jump to conclusions and to use terms like "de-liberate circumvention", " bad faith" and " deliberately withheld") severely tests Licensee's capability to follow the Board's direction to the parties to apply a spirit of coopera-tion and to minimize disputes.

Some review of the general background here is in order.

TMIA and Licensee are preparing for hearing on the Dieckamp mailgram issue which the Appeal Board characterized as a " rela-tively narrow issue."

In response to TMIA's discovery on this relatively narrow issue, Licensee has produced tens of thou-i sands of pages of documents and attended almost 30 depositions of its employees-and ex-employees.

After first being produced

.in Harrisburg, the many documents were transported to and made available in D.C. to accommodate TMIA not only during normal work hours, but as well at night and on weekends. In contrast, Licensee's lone request for a copy of TMIA documents was made initially on October 2 and still is not fulfilled although it involved only six documents.

I am particularly disturbed by your suggestion that one of Shaw, Pittman's paralegals, Ms. DeBow, deliberately withheld a L

~ document-you allegedly requested on October 8, 1984.

I have l

l 8410230401 841022 gDRADOCK05000 a

+

SHAw.. PITTMAN : PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE ~

' A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CompOnAtiONS -

Letter to Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

October 22, 1984 Page 2 reviewed the. circumstances and discussed this with Ms..DeBow.

'I am convinced your charges are misplaced and inappropriate.

My experience'over Rome years.with Ms. DeBow leads me to regard her as conscientious and dependable and not given to the type of behavior you would attribute to her.

Some background on_your specific allegation concerning Ms.

~

4 DeBow's actions is appropriate.

On Friday afternoon, October 5,'following the last deposition that week-in Harrisburg, you requested of'me that Licensee's Discovery Room-be made avail-able to you on Monday, October 8.

I noted that because Monday was a federal holiday which our firm observed, I did not know-whether I could at that late date get someone familiar with the documents to;come into the office to meet your request.

I i

l agreed, however, to try.and because it was a holiday sought specifically both the~ length of time you wanted someone avail-4 able and the time.

Your responses were "a couple of hours" and "from 12 to 2".

Since the place where TMIA holds its deposi-tions does not have a phone I was allowed to use, I stopped in Harrisburg at a public' phone on my way back to D.C. and called Mr. Lewis in my office to see if arrangements could be made to accommodate you.

In fact, Mr. Lewis did locate a person to come into the office on that Monday and the person was available from 12 to 2.

Your office was notified by Mr. Lewis.

On Monday, we never heard from_you during this period.

Our records reflect you first called and spoke with our receptionist just before 2:30, j

at which time the person who had been available was no longer There ensued several conversations involving you, our re-so.

ceptionist and Ms. DeBow at her home.

Confronted with your threat that if documents weren't made available that day, the deposition schedule couldn't be maintained (and, thus, to Ms.

DeBow the hearing schedule was in doubt), Ms. DeBow elected to leave home and come to the office to accomodate you for what you represented would take only about 20 minutes.

During the ensuing more than two hours that Ms. DeBow subsequently spent answering your document requests, she provided you with thou-sands of pages of documents, more than two thousand of which were copied at your further request and provided the next day.

i Your specific charge is that Ms. DeBow deliberately withheld an interview of Mr. Abramovici despite your request that day.

Attached are copies of three documents.

The first i

is your request handed to Ms. DeBow on October 8 for documents you desired to review.

You will note the only request involving Mr. Abramovici is for his questionnaire, which e--

i*

w.

.----.nn-

.,e.,w.

i-..,-

,-rw-aww+w-w-**r-** -h e---

r e n w +w, w +a-m-- - w w w + w - w -+ w w-m-aw e e-e w e w,- e-e-aw w

w-r w -ew s e

w

. SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE '

A PARTNCRSHap OF PROrgsstCNAL CORPORATIONS Letter to Lynne'Bernabei,-Esq.

October-22, 1984 Page 3 n

l apparently was provided.

(The words " Brahma Bee" and "Abramovici" which appear at the bottom of the second page I am i

1 informed were jotted down sometime well after October 8 (proba-1 bly October 16).when Mr. John Wilson's office in New Jersey in-

. quired of.Ms. DeBow'whether the set of Discovery. Room documents included an Abramovici interview.'

The second attached document is Ms. DeBow's notes of additional documents you requested be produced on October 8.

The third document is the Document Re-quest Form completed for your copying request that day.

Nei-

)

ther of these latter two documents refer 1to an Abramovici in-terview.- Based.on my experience and recent discussions with Ms. DeBow and my review of the. enclosed documents, I believe

-you are wrong and I personally would appreciate your reconsid-ering the charge and apologizing to Ms. DeBow.

As to Licensee's inquiry regarding additional documents relevant to the Dieckamp mailgram issue, I give.up.

My best l

attempts to understand your answers.and resolve the questions are characterized by you as misstatements.

Further exchanges would not appear to be fruitful.

As to your comments on Licensee's responses to TMIA's fourth set of discovery, Licensee's Third Supplemental Response to TMIA's First. Set and Licensee's response to your fifth set, l

I note initially my disappointment that our attempts to iron i

out differences on the fourth set failed and have received your motion to compel.

We will respond either by further attempts to resolve the differences informally, or by written answer.

We are compiling additional information on the third supplemen-tal response as we agreed to do the night of October 16, and presumably that matter is closed.

We have not discussed at all the fifth set responses but we are prepared to do so as scon as you are ready.

The remaining items in your letter requiring response con-l cern matters which arose during the Lentz and Abramovici depo-sitions on October 15 in Harrisburg.

Because I was not at these depositions, I have asked Mr. Wilson, who did attend them, to respond to your comments.

His response follows.

"Mr. Lentz, in response to the GPU Nuclear questionnaire, indicated that he did have documents.

I contacted Mr.

L Lentz on August 31, 1984, and after a discussion with Mr.

Lentz about those-documents, Mr. Lentz stated that he would forward all his material for me to review as to being responsive to the document discovery request of TMIA.

Upon receipt of the documents, I removed them from t

l l

~ *

- SHAW. PITTMAN. PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE

. A pamTNERSMID OF pmOFgsSIONAL CompCRAhCNS Letter to Lynne Bernabei,.Esq.:

October 22, 1984

Page 4

'their' mailer and~taggedifor reproduction.those documents which were' responsive to the discovery requestL(contain-ment spray actuation, pressure; spike, and generation and subsequent combustion of hydrogen).

A copy of the respon-sive documents.were provided in Licensee's initial produc -

. tion of documents in-the Discovery Room.= Meanwhile, Mr.

Lentz's documents were kept intact in their original mail-er.. ' During the week of October 8, in anticipation of re-

. turning.the documents to,Mr. Lentz,-I had two additional copies of all the-documents reproduced for'the retention j-of the material aus sent.. Those documents not produced in.

discovery were clearly not discoverable under the document t

request.and protective order.

On October 14,=I returned i

to Mr. Lentz his original package of documents.

Mr.

Lentz's deposition transcript will state how Mr. Lentz characterized delivery of-those documents to the company.

Ms. Bernabei's representation that I indicated that I would produce the Lentz-notes from March 28, 1979 during the deposition islan absolute misrepresentation.. On the contrary, I simply offered a copy of those_ notes to Ms.

Bernabei as a professional courtesy since-she did not want to mark Mr. Lentz's original notes.

"In response to the GPU Nuclear questionnaire, Mr.

Abramovici indicated that he did not have any documents

~

and therefore no follow-up was made with him. - Further, Mr. Abramovici did not state during his deposition that 4

his notes may indicate that he was told about 2500* tem-j peratures and actuation of containment spray on March 28,

~

although he did state that his recollection was that he had heard incore thermocouple readings were high and that the source of such information was either Mr. Bensel or Mr. Kunder, but most likely Mr. Bensel.

Regarding con-i tainment spray, Mr. Abramovici also stated during the dep-l osition that he heard about it early on.

There was no in-dication from the notes that Mr. Abramovici showed to me prior to the deposition (which consisted only of his notes from March 28, 1979) that the notes contained any informa-tion which was the subject of document discovery.

Copies of Mr. Abramovici's notes for the 28th and 29th have been obtained and it is noted that on the top of one page, which bears the number 3 in a circle, there is a mention of 'H2 concentration unknown'.

"I do not know what request Ms. Bernabei has made for an l

Abramovici interview from the Discovery Room.

However, on October-16, 1984, a paralegal from my firm, Janet

.ee

.....n

,--,,.-.,wm.,,

m wm.. -,

w.e-m.,mee-c.,y.y,

--,e,..ew,-,-

w-

.--,-,.,v,,ve-,.

,_m,,,-.-w-nw-e-

c SH Aw, PITTMAN.- PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP OF ppHy ESSIONAL ComponAriONS Letter.to Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

~ October 22, 1984 Page 5 Gingrich, confirmed that his interview was in the Discov-ery Room.

Ms. Bernabel's characterization that I denied on the record that GPU had failed to produce the interview again is a misrepresentation and the transcript will speak for itself."

In response to your further request, a copy of Mr.

Abramovici's notes of March 28 and 29-are being made available in the Discovery Room.

I close with the sincerest of requests that the name-calling and charges cease and that.we try hard to reduce the time needed to be expended on exchanges such as this, and that we get on responsibly with the hearing process.

Sincerely, b 7 #M,[

Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

P.C.

Counsel for. Licensee cc: Service List

,a

.ggym

--=

r

'o

(-t l '.

g I

l l.

f I

i f

i I

f r

ATTACHMENT I i

k i

l

(

i f

l t

i

0 a_ A % 1

_ ct M i k u M. k x/s4

_?"d 4

tsl<

A...

o l

s._ W i. w M

_..._ _ _ r x e u4swA a e ~ s

.., n n s e t u /,1. _ _

o s s_ m g ~ f _ _

e

. D~$!

• I t. f _. - -

. b o l v. s 3..,",.. / - 2 G r a a m u. [--.. -.... _.

C~ w O G I. v v R-c1 6-t c_ _ _h4=-/

6 C, A. 4 l (E d.

LA.h lt<s a #

mwa < > C nw as M.

O D /_.4 V b

lh. n1o ~ llt /

3. /+ me O O.1 ~q q

'1D 1-

' F'. tA). Lla-kHw/

C- "

1_ t i

,.s Li * - 4 JW L

kY_3- -

D.cys < d d be F N44-CM M w s

~. DM

'l St.L t

W h

e

. h.me

.Nh.

(C ] """ m u % ~4 W

s he

__._h. b.T._..b}M._b i

g M eM Oct' to

(

_.a.

..._N Ch\\

h. 0'Vol&

sil'W ~ N'^W

'.. q( c,.

SA ' il,

.b.0d b

P"'O LJ b ut -

P O.L /ra.

Gu C,.

l

[.

A t c f o cl a w o..

?. M A..

v a s s,

'Jo L. K rA-

-" t-0 h M S 7-

-- _ M:k '

O I

S ct t i es.

n 4

In s}2A A

_7._n_. _..d_.. w

__...__._g,__.

cLuk o A t s. MV--

...h

-tf-U.s s-fmiE -G XV 5-b T/'%7 g.

.._. Ms % &,._ '"!e3,. ' W. a, my7, tLW

.. L % Ai u A.

.- m w w

.... k3lW& ~ % % k bI. _* 1 #1 E. _ _..--

l

_ Cwe

- L w. b m _.- m, S R._..___.

0^

WA k

~ Lhk. $- A

.c L

_.n w V T N

-t Ye t -~

- #..a s muc-

~

-*25C2.__ *S^>r

.. - ym

-6 c

__. % A~ d W; w

" 5L.

ky,m t h p -t-t' f -14 tu ce te og_

.~

464 c. we

... g.

.m se l

b.

5,.

p..

.Mus

.sw e

m gu.

s...

e

.e$..

g g e..W W e.e-b

.*8

..=.

-.;p po.

e.

es.

.a._

===*

. y.

l l

l

e q.

a ATTACHMENT 2 1

~

c4te p[th Gj. w h u 9 3 (*

ij D 4 t.,4 2.

Cft7/sksq.

0.'(% 7[wh r g. TraA Git <,A)

-0 y7 d

(9 rm4 (sfD.o-(,C to)

D -b Q4 o-*D a-(4

( 4 0-30) 3 0 C+to 53 )

~

o_(, -d m 6 D-LO C )

C5)

(4)

(T) 4)

@ tw A al T -11

{ Qua-. < n lY1l.Vl[9}

(5Q M.-c<<s 5,p 7/28/r4 (s4).

og 44 003t4 9pc/v{ @g) upg /1/H Tut to &La 9

9f1lv/ se -es~h

?

7-sa aL o~ +

Q-1 D-l o- (-(

D-f G5))

o-i m

P-e 1

ATTACHMENT 3 a

7 l

?

)

. r i

gn i

'N O

T t, *.

p

.4 ji 6

se w

I hh i

$b gy a

x_

4 p L A

2 - '.

(L, 7 g. c.

i$

V w

3 g3 N

.q

-v 3

L g

m s

g M.

m p

== a.

h b$

5,.

M E

5 i

&Y 5

sW N

w E

E E

I T.

E g

e O

1 g

5a

.Uc t' W e4 m

E n.

W 4

W W

Q. M N

O U $

h h

'e

.)

Y

'% 4'0

~

4 O

r%

^,

V" v%

)

A A

g y

3 o

O T#

w

.~

,3 s%

7 9

0 o

a

=

m"g y

~

=

O o

w3

~

s p

p m

W l

[\\

,,, 1 O a f g,'

o1 i

i 1 c.

i b

1 O C Q-

~

.q E

4-

'x 3

T, g

?

e x

g

~

w

=

w

,_.._m

R): TMI DISCOVERY R0(M hWded

~

~

DOCtMENT REPRODUCTION REQUEST TOTAL COPIES PER TOTAL COST TOTAL DOCUMENT NO.

XER X MC PAES PAGE COPIES COPY COST TO PAPER OTHER hi< I s+

l'} b Y

(No-lO) p - tc ( I" \\ r- ?9) y D

V( H O -3Q y

D te ( *f D - 3 ') )

p' h r4 ( I m ;',c- 0 0 - L TAe % g 9/9/ W 'tf ;;> -

U i

D-%udA X

,f %'alb ;

('b I

.n- (, ( O (f,

• t 5, ;[ h '

Recofved $

. m.By Signed _h

.c

'd C..

C s c..

Date

) D11 I "C Li Matiing%ddress

(+ /) l')

,;z,,

,.~..~ _

e

's.

y db

.-8 2"

M WW

'p

$g

(

s uu s

t.-

c e we A' 2 ag e

O g

-u u

M g

4

-e.

mW l

3 WE

&3 g

G22 a

5-E C

m E

e Eu W

=

W g

3 E

s.

E s?"

c e

g is 3

u O

=

X

'y N

}.

V 3) c

~

a.s g

c.

. : m 1

n

8. >

- 1

.s c >

b g'

k2 C *7

.si a

W3 r

s y

s.s

)

1' r c

e c

{h sv 2,

s c

~1 14 G

h 10

.*{

S E

h 14

's 7 1 b

w y

n

.i n

l' q

5 x

?1 ja h

5g I 4[

~

=

2 r}

i g i

u T: $

'l

3 u

te

~

i t r A 1

2

.s cu a e

a c e s v

oc

R2; TMI DISCOVERY ROOM hedad

~

~

DOCtMENT REPRODUCTION REQUEST TYPE COPY (Check one)

TOTAL COPIES PER TOTAL COST TOTAL DOCUfENT NO.

XEROX MICROFILM PAGES PAGE COPIES COPY COST TO PAPER OTHER Oe.4... -.. m

( Ol ? lk ' l l'~~ t

(%+v+ 4-vi'ifek 3 i

4 Rec 31ved $

. m 8y Signed h t O

I$ c..i.-

~

Date IDh t 1 $ Lf Malling M ress (~r M P i 's % C () t.-

~{ j (S...-r U0 e

6

- -