ML20212F948
| ML20212F948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1987 |
| From: | Doris Lewis GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2655 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8703050223 | |
| Download: ML20212F948 (15) | |
Text
r-t 245[
WTWWWMMst.WK C0CKETED USNPC March 2, 1987
'87 I M -3 P 1 :53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Administrative Law Judce In the Matter of
)
50-320 c(u fed GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No.
)
EA-84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 2)
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE NRC STAFF AND FOURTH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720, GPU Nuclear Corporation
("GPUN") requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff answer the following interrogatories in writing and under oath within 14 days.
GPUN further requests in accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 2.744 that the NRC Staff produce the documents specified below.
The following definitions and instructions shall apply to these requests:
I. Definitions A.
The terms "NRC,"
"you" and "your" refer to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and all of its officials, employees, representatives, attorneys, investigators, and others acting on its behalf.
0703050223 B70302 600CK0500gg0 PDR 1sc8
y Y
~
... n
~
.~
t t
\\-
s B.
The term "GPUN" refers to GPU Nuclear Corporation and its affiliates, and its and their officers, directors, represen-tatives and others acting or purporting to act on its or.their behalf.
q v
C.
The term " Parks" refers to Richard p.LParks.
D.
The term "TMI" refers'to Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
E.
" Person" as used herein r.efers to any individual, part-nership, firm, association, corporation or other government, legal'or businesq entity.
s s
~.
F.
" Document" includes 'any ' written, recorded or graphic matter, however.-produced or reproduced, of every kind and regard-less of where located, including but not' limited to: any summary,.
schedule, memorandum, note, statement, letter, telegram, in-teroffice communication, report, diary, desk or pocket calendar orsnotebook, daybook, appointment book, pamphlet, f.e r iodical, w6rk sheet, cost sheet, list, graph, chart, index, tape, record, partial or complete report of teleghone or oral conversation, compilation, tabulation, study,' analysis, transcript, minutes, and all other memorials, of any conversations, meetings and con-ferences by telephone or otherwise, and any other writing or re-cording which is in the possession, custody or control of the NRC.
's n-- - - - - - - - -. -,, - - -, - - - -
e i
4 II.
Instructions q:
A.
These interrogatories, under the law, call not merely for your own personal and present knowledge, although in form 8
they.may appear to be so limited.
They call also for the present knowledge of your attorneys, investigators and other agents, and for information available to you and to them.
B.
If you cannot answer a particular interrogatory in full, after exercising due diligence to secure the information to do so, so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying and explaining your inability to answer the remainder and stating whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered portion.
i
~~
C.
Each interrogatory is a continuing one, and should be supplemented as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(e).
D.
If you claim that any document or oral communication which is required to be identified by you in your response to any of these interrogatories is privileged or immune from discovery:
1.
Identify the portion of the interrogatory to which the document or communications is otherwise responsive; l
2.
Identify the document's title or the oral communi-l cation and state the general subject matter of the document
'or oral communication; l 1
4 1 :u o
3.
State the date of the document or oral communica-tion; 4.
If a document, identify its author (s) and the per-son (s) for whom it was prepared or to whom it was sent, including all persons who you ca,n reasonably determine re-ceived copies; i
5.
If an oral communication, identify all persons present at the time of the oral communication; 6.
State the nature of the privilege or immunity claimed and identify the precise subsection of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790 that applies; 7.
State in detail each and every fact upon which you base your claim of privilege or immunity from discovery, identify precisely the NRC's interest in nondisclosure, and explain in detail how that interest would be affected; and 9
cehI,ifythatnocopieshav been 8.
If a document, shown or distributed to persons outside the NRC.
l f
E.
In each case where you are asked to identify or to l
state the identity of a document,or where the answer to an inter-l rogatory refers to a document, state with respect to each such l
document:
l l
_4_
1
r 1.
The identity of the person who prepared it; 2.
The identify of all persons who reviewed or ap-proved it; 3.
The identity of the person who signed it, or over whose name it was issued; 4.
The identity of the addressee or addressees; 5.
The nature and substance of the document with suf-ficient particularity to enable the same to be identi-fied; 6.
The date of the document; and 7.
The present location of the document and the iden-tify and address of each person who has custody of the document.
F.
In each case where you are required to identify an oral communication, or where the answer to the interrogatory refers to an oral communication, state with respect thereto:
a.
The date and place thereof; b.
The identity of each person who participated in or heard any part of the communication; l
t i
I !
l l
O l
~
c.
If the comunication was by telephone, so indicate and state who initiated the telephone call; d.
The substance of what was said by each person who participated in the communication; and e.
The location and the identity and address of the custodian of any document (including any mechanical, magnetic, electrical or electronic recording) that recorded, summarized, reported or confirmed the oral communication.
G.
In each instance where you are asked to identify or to state the identity of a person, or where the answer to en inter-rogatory refers to a person, state with respect to each such per-son:
1.
His name; 2.
His last known business and residence addresses and telephone numbers; L
3.
If an individual, his business affiliation or employment at the date of the transaction, event or matter referred to; and 4.
If a corporation or association, the business or i
activity in which it was engaged at the date of the transaction, event or matter referred to.
1 l 1
F 4
H.
The phrases " state in detail" and " describe in detail" as used herein mean that you are requested to state, with specif-icity, each and every fact, ultimate fact, circumstance, inci-dent, act, omission, event and date, relating to or otherwise pertaining to the matters inquired of in said interrogatory.
III.
Interroaatories 1.
Attached to the NRC Staff Second Supplemental Response to GPU Nuclear Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories and Re-quest for Production of Documents (Dec. 15, 1986), the NRC pro-vided a document entitled " Draft for Mystery Man A.ffidavit,"
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 was the draft affidavit never finalized?
I 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 l
[
whom?
l l I
m
f)
To whom at the NRC was the draft affidavit given?
g)
Describe in detail the precise circumstances under which the draft affidavit was provided to the NRC, including whether the NRC solicited the draft and whether the draft was provided during an investigative interview or meeting.
h)
Identify and describe in detail all written or oral communications to NRC personnel related to-the provision of the draft affidavit to the NRC.
i)
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 inter-views attended by NRC personnel in which the draft affidavit or any other form or version of the draft affidavit was men-tioned or discussed.
1)
Identify and describe in detail all oral or written communications among or to NRC personnel referring or dis-cussing the draft affidavit or any other form or version of the draft affidavit. 1 v.
.--.....--,m-.y---,
,r
-,.--,-,.---..--,,--.m,..-----r---.
4 m)
Identify all memoranda, reports, or other documents in the NRC's custody or control discussing, analyzing, or re-ferring to the draft affidavit of any other form or version of the draft affidavit.
2.
Does the NRC disagree with or doubt any portion of the draft affidavit identified in Interrogatory 1 above.
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.
4.
Also attached to the NRC Staff Second Supplemental Response to GPU Nuclear Corporation's First Set of Interrogatories and Re-quest for Production of Documents (Dec. 15, 1986) was a 6-page handwritten document with a cover page marked " Parks -- Disclo-sures Received from Anonymous Whistleblower," hereinafter re-ferred 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 handwritten document?
_9_
)
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?
e)
What was Richard Parks' involvement in preparing or providing information for the handwritten document?
f)
Who other than R. Meeks 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 l
the handwritten document with other allegations and state-ments made by the person or persons who prepared or contrib-uted to the preparation of the handwritten document?
If so, describe in detail the results and conclusions drawn from l
such comparison.
l l
i I !
,,--,--r y
0 c
i)
Identify and describe in detail all meetings or inter-views 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 refer-ring to, or discussing the handwritten document.
k)
Identify all memoranda, reports, or other documents in the NRC's custody or control discussing, analyzing or refer-ring to the handwritten document.
5.
Does the NRC disagree with or doubt any portion of the handwritten document identified in interrogatory 4 above?
6.
If the NRC's response to interrogatory 5 above is anything but an unqualified "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.
l 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 l
Injection Pumps."
This memorandum contained an attachment enti-i tied " 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.
I f l
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 inac-curate statement and describe in detail why the statement is inaccurate.
e)
Describe in detail all NRC activities undertaken to as-sess the accuracy of the attachment.
f)
Identify and describe in detail all meetings or inter-views 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.
h)
Identify all memoranda, reports, or other documents in i
r the NRC's custody or control discussing, analyzing, or re-ferring to the attachment.
l l
8.
If the NRC's investigation of Parks' " mystery man" allega-tions, 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.
I l._
Hayes to H. Denton, culminated in the preparation of NRC in-vestigative reports or other documents discussing investigative findings, identify all such reports or documents.
9.
If the NRC's investigation of Parks' " mystery man" allega-tions was terminated without preparation by the NRC of an in-vestigative 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 i
and on what date.
c)
State in detail all reasons why the investigation was terminated.
d)
Identify and describe in detail all discussions, con-versations and communications relating or referring to the decision to terminate the investigation.
I e)
Identify all documents discussing, relating, or refer-1 I
ring to the termination of OI's investigation of Parks' mys-l tery man allegations.
10.
Does the NRC disagree with or doubt any portion of Parks' l
mystery man allegations, as stated at page 36-37 of Parks' March 21, 1983 affidavit? -. -.,.
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.
IV.
Document Recuests 1.
Produce all documents required to be identified by the in-terrogatories above.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE N
J. Patrick Hickey, P.C.
David R. Lewis Counsel for GPUN Dated: March 2, 1987 l
l l
t l I
.g.
xnnEn
! iN H' UNITED STATES OF MMERICA
'87 MAR -3 P 153 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Administrative Law Judoe y
[Yv#$[
,,t
.ANCm
-In the Matter of
)
)
GPU Nuclear Corporation
)
Docket No. 50-320
)
License No. DPR-73
)
EA-84-137 (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "GPU Nuclear Corporation's Second Set of Interrogatories to the NRC Staff and Fourth Request for Production of Documents" was served by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid this 2nd day of March, 1987, to the following persons:
Ivan Smith, Esquire Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 I
George E. Johnson, Esquire l
Office of the General Counsel l
9604 MNBB U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 i
r -. ;
\\~
L-< (
David R. Lewis Dated:
March 2, 1987 l
-