ML20207S586

NRC Staff Response to Gpu Nuclear Corp Second Set of Interrogatories to NRC Staff & Fourth Request for Production of Documents.* W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20207S586
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/18/1987
From:	Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
References
CON-#187-2823 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8703200067
Download: ML20207S586 (12)

Text

. .

-, 2.f23 03/18/87

~

b-@CORRESPuuocnp s DOCKETED USNRC 4

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *87 MAR 18 P4 :26 BEFORE TIIE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE .

Unci 7 E , gay.Eim . y i . '

f In the Matter of )

)

GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-320

) (Civil Penalty)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station ) License No. DPR-73 Unit No. 2) ) EA 84-137 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO TIIE NRC STAFF AND FOURTH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

^

I. INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff hereby responds to GPU Nuclear Corporation's Second i

Set of Interrogatories to the NRC Staff and Fourth Request for Production of Documents, ("Second/ Interrogatories") dated March 2,1987.

As has been previously noted, the Staff is under no obligation to respond to interrogatories and document requests where GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) has not complied with 10 C.F.R. I 2.720(h)(2)(ii) and I 2.744, t.

This GPUN has failed to do. Further, the Staff may not be required to answer party interrogatories except upon a finding that answers to the interrogatories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source. The answers sought by GPUN in its Second Interrogatories i are either not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding, or reasonably obtainable from another source, or both. Finally, the bulk of the requested information does not meet the general requirement that discovery be " relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding."

8703200067 870318

{DR ADOCK 05000320 PDR fg

I 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(1). See accompanying NRC Staff Motion for Protective Order.

II. INTERROGATORY RESPONSES INTERROGATORY NO.1

1. Attached to the NRC Staff Second Supplemental Response to GPU Nuclear Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Dec. 15, 1986), the NRC provided a document entitled " Draft for Mystery Man Affidavit ," hereinafter referred to as the draft affidavit.

a) Identify all persons who participated in drafting or were otherwise involved in preparing the draft affidavit.

b) When was the draft affidavit prepared?

c) Why as the draft affidavit never finalized?

d) Who was involved in the decision not to finalize the draft affidavit?

e) When was the draft affidavit provided to the NRC and by whom?

f) To whom at the NRC was the draft affidavit given?

g) Describe in detail the precise circumstances under which the draft aff! davit was provided to the NRC, including whether the NRC rolicited the draft and whether the draft was provided during an investigative interview or meeting.

h) Identify and describe in dete11 all written or oral communications to NRC personnel related to the provision of the draft affidavit to the NRC.

f) To whom at the NRC were copies of the draft affidavit distributed?

j) Was the draft affidavit produced or provided to the NRC in any other form or version? If so identify each such document and provide the information requested in paragraphs (a)-(e) above with respect to each.

k) Identify and describe in detail all meetings or interviews attended by NRC personnel in which the draft affidavit or any other form or version of the draft affidavit was mentioned or discussed.

1) Identify and describe in detail all oral or written communications among or to NRC personnel referring or discussing the draft f

affidavit or any other form or version of the draft affidavit.

m) Identify all memoranda, reports, or other documents in the NRC's custody or control discussion, analyzing, or referring to the draft affidavit of any other form or version of the draft affidavit.

4 OBJECTION 1(a)-(m). As is obvious from the subject . document, " Draft For i Mystery Man Affidavit," the document represents the views of Richard

Parks. The circumstances surrounding its preparation, circulation and revision may be learned from Mr. Parks, who will be deposed in this proceeding. Thus, answers to these interrogatories by the Staff are not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding and are reasonably available from another scurce. Second, the Staff has already provided through its letter dated November 6,1986, to counsel for GPUN, and the Affidavit of Ronald Meeks, dated March 3,1987, information known to the Staff on this subject. More importantly, the circumstances of preparation, circulation and revision of the subject document are not relevant to the subject matter in this proceeding. Moreover, whether Mr. Parks was engaged in protected activity does not turn on the correctness of his " mystery man" allegation. Even assuming that the validity of Mr. Parks' mystery man concerns is relevant to this proceeding, the Staff has previously provided all materials in its possession on this subject. The Staff's position on the validity of Mr. Parks' contention has already been provided to GPUN by letter dated November 6,1986. Information on which GPUN may wish to challenge the validity of Mr. Parks' concerns, moreover, is reasonably available to it

.- -, - - . - . - - - - - , , - - .-c - - , - - - - .. ,___,--,,,-n - -

. from GPUN's own investigations and other sources. Finally, given that the Staff has already provided all statements in its possession made by Parks or which concern his allegations, the request for further searches is annoying, oppressive, and unduly burdensome.

I_NTERROGATORY NO. 2 Does the NRC disagree with or doubt any portion of the draft affidavit identifled in Interrogatory 1 above.

OEJFCTION See objection to Interrogatory No.1. The draft affidavit is eight pages in length. The interrogatory, however, does not identify which statement it is addressing and is therefore overly broad and vague.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3 If the NRC's response to Interrogatory 2 above is anything but an unqualified "no," identify each specific statement in the draft affidavit which the NRC disagrees with or doubts and explain in detail why the NRC disagrees with or doubts each such statement.

OBJECTION See objection to Interrogatories 1 and 2.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Also attached to the NRC Staff Second Supplemental Response to GPU Nuclea'r Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Dec. 15, 1986) was a 6-page handwritten document with a cover page marked " Parks--Disclosures Received from Anonymous Whistleblower," hereinafter referred to as the handwritten document. According to the NRC Staff's Response, the handwritten document was provided to R. Meeks by T. Devine of GAP in July 1983.

With respect to the handwritten document, state the following:

a) Who prepared, assisted in the preparation of, or wrote the i handwritten document?

b) When was the handwritten document written or prepared?

c) Describe in detail why the handwritten document was prepared.

How was the information intended to be used?

d) If different from the person who prepared or wrote the handwritten document, who was the " anonymous whistleblower" who provided the information reflected in the handwritten document?

c) What was Richard Parks' involvement in preparing or providing information for the handwritten document?

f) Who other than R. Mecks received copies of or reviewed the handwritten document?

g) Did the NRC investigate or analyze the statements and allegations in the handwritten document? If so, describe in detail the results of all such investigations or analyses.

h) Did the NRC compare the statements and allegations in the handwritten document with other allegations and statements made by the person or persons who prepared or contributed to the preparation of the handwritten document? If so, describe in detail-the results and conclusions drawn from such comparison.

f) Identify and describe in detail all meetings or interviews attended by NRC personnel in which the handwritten document was mentioned or discussed.

j) Identify and describe in detail all oral or written communications among or to NRC personnel relating or referring to, or discussing

the handwritten document.

i k) Identify all memoranda, reports , or other documents in the NRC's custody of control discussing, analyzing or referring to the handwritten document.

OBJECTION The subject 6-page handwritten document was previously identified I

as being received from Mr. Parks' attorney. As a result, information concerning its origins and disposition, other than its disposition OI files is readily available from either Mr. Parks or his attorney.

4 i

GPUN has not proposed that the subject matter of the document in question is relevant to this proceeding. Even if there were some matters addressed therein which may arguably be relevant, such statements address no information not already well known to GPUN. Discovery concerning such statements is not necessary for a proper decision in this proceeding.

Similarly, given the amorphous nature of the subject document and its only tangential references to any issues in this proceeding, there is no conceivable relevance to information concerning what the Staff did with this document , or what its views on it may be. Such information is clearly not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding. Requests for detailed answers on these irrelevant matters, and requests for further searches for documents contitute annoyance, oppression and would entail undue burden and expense.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Does the NRC disagree with or doubt any portion of the handwritten document identified in interrogatory 4 above?

CDJECTION See objection to Interrogatory No. 4. In addition, the interrogatory is overly broad and vague.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6

, If the NRC's response to interrogatory 5 above is anything but an unoualified "no," identify each specific statement in the handwritten document which the NRC disagrees with or doubts and explain in detail why the NRC disagrees with or doubts each such statement.

OBJECTION See objection to Interrogatory No. 5.

INTERECGATORY NO 7 By letter dated November 6,1986, the NRC Staff provided to GPUN a Memorandum from Ben Hayes to Harold Denton (Oct. 28, 1983), entitled "EDS Nuclear Inc. Analysis of the High Pressure Injection Pumps." This memorandum contained an attachment entitled " Richard D. Parks Overview of the EDS Nuclear Inc. Analysis of the High Pressure Injection Activity During the TMI-2 Accident," hereinafter referred to as the attachment.

a) Who prepared the attachment?

b) What was the purpose of preparing the attachment?

c) Is the attachment accurate?

, d) If the attachment is not accurate, identify each inaccurate statement and describe in detail why the statement is inaccurate.

e) Describe in detail all NRC activities undertaken to assess the accuracy of the attachment.

f) Identify and describe in detail all meetings or interviews attended by NRC personnel in which the attachment was mentioned or discussed.

g) Identify and describe in detail all oral or written communications to NRC personnel relating or referring to the attachment.

I h) Identify all memoranda, reports, or other documents in the NRC's custody or control discussing, analyzing, or referring to the attachment.

OBJECTION See objection to Interrogatory No.1. Discovery into the purpose or manner in which the subject document was prepared is not a subject of this proceeding and is irrelevant to the issues in the case. As indicated sbove, the Staff position, together with all documents on this subject in 3

the Staff's possession have already been produced to GPUN or are being i

i

, .. . . , . _ , _ . - . _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _, . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . .__ _ _ _ _ ___. .

b made available. Thus, further answers are not necessary for a proper decision in the case. Moreover, even if the accuracy of the subject

" attachment" were relevant, GPUN has access to a great deal of information from its own investigation, the B&W-GPU law suit and NRC documents from which to attempt , if appropriate, to challenge the accuracy of Mr. Parks' statement. GPUN has no need for any Staff views as to such matters.

Finally, inasmuch as the request seeks a further search for documents, it is hurdensome, oppressive and annoying. The Staff has already searched for and produced all materials in its possession on Mr. Parks' mystery man allegations, which, among other things, explain the source of the subject " attachment."

INTERROGATORY NO. 8 If the NRC's investigation of Parks' " mystery man" allegations, which was referred to at page 4 of the Summary and in items C-2 and C-3 of the September 1,1983 OI Report and which was also referred to in the October 28, 1983 memorandum from B. Hayes to H. Denton, culminated in the preparation of NRC investigative reports or other documents discussing investigative findings, identify all such reports or documents.

OBJECTION The Staff has previously provided the requested information, as well as provided responsive documents in its possession. Such reauest, insofar as it seeks a further search, is oppressive, annoying and unduly burdensome.

I l

l l

INTERROOATORY NO. 9

, If the NRC's investigation of Parks' " mystery man" allegations was terminated without preparation by the NRC of an investigative report or other document discussing investigative findings:

a) State in detail why no investigative report or other document discussing investigative findings was prepared.

b) State who decided to terminate the investigation and on what dato.

c) State in detail all reasons why the investigation was terminated.

d) Identify and describe in detail all discussions, conversations and communications relating or referring to the decision to terminate the investigation.

c) Identify all documents discussing, relating, or referring to the i termination of OI's investigation of Parks' mystery man allegations.

OI1JFCTION Why NRC conducted or did not conduct an investigation into Mr. Parks' " mystery man" allegations is irrelevant to this proceeding, and l certainly not necessary to a proper decision. Moreover, all documentary material representing NRC involvement in reviewing Mr. Parks' allegations has been previously identified and/or produced. The matter is further addressed in the Affidavit of Ronald Meeks, dated March 3,1987. As a result, the request insofar as it seeks a further search for and identification of documents, is oppressive, burdensome, and annoying.

INTERROGATORY NO.10 Does the NRC disagree with or doubt any portion of Parks' mystery man allegations, as stated at page 36-37 of Parks' March 21, 1983 affidavit?

OBJECTION This interrogatory is unduly broad and vague. A great many things are stated on pages 36 and 37 of Mr. Parks' affidavit. It is impossible to glean what it is that GPUN seeks to have the Staff acknowledge.

Moreover, the Staff's position and action with respect to those allegations have been previously provided, and this interrogatory is duplicative, oppressive, burdensome to answer, and annoying. See also the Staff's objection to Interrogatory 11.

INTERROGATORY NO.11 If the NRC's response to Interrogatory 10 above is anything but an unqualified "no," identify each specific allegation which the NRC disagrees with or doubts and explain in detail why the NRC disagrees with or doubts each such allegation.

OBJECTION See objection to Interrogatory No.10. As noted previously, the Staff's position on the validity of the Parks allegation concerning the i

existence of a mystery man has been long available to GPUN. Moreover, GPUN does not need the Staff's position on validity of those allegations to obtain evidence on their validity, evidence which GPUN has itself I

gathered in exhaustive detail through depositions and otherwise. Such information is thus readily available to GPUN and not necessary to a proper decision. Discovery of this information is therefore repetitive of each requests, and is unduly burdensome, annoying and oppressive.

i

III. DOCUMENT RESPONSES As discussed above, no documents are required to be identifed inasmuch as such document discovery is not necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding, reasonably obtainable from other sources, and in large part irrelevant to this case.

Respec ully submitted,

$ L

(

G gee.Ioh n Counsel rN Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 18th day of March,1987 i

.r - , - , - - - . - ~ . - - - - , . - - - , , ,- , - - - - - - . - , - - _ -- --v - --,-,---,---,.-,-#- -- e ----

D3fM TE' U%RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '87 MAR 18 P4 :26 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDQE . . .

m . . c E _2._:m mn v DOCKEIING A SE6VICL BRANCH In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-320 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) (Civil Penalty)

) License No. DPR-73 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station ) EA 84-137 Unit No. 2) )

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO TIIE NRC STAFF AND FOURTil REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class , or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system ,

this 18th day of March,1987.

• Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Ernest L. Blake, Jr.

Administrative Law Judge Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2300 N Street, NW U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington, DC 20037 V/ashington, DC 20555 l

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Steven L. Hock, Esq.

Appeal Board Thelen, Marrin, Johnson, Bridges i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 Embarcadero Center l Washington, DC 20555 San Francisco, CA 94111

!

• Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

/

% // Cfl/F Wge E,f Joftnp6n

, Counsel kr ItffC Staff

. - - - -. . - - .