ML13302B974
| ML13302B974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | FRIENDS OF THE EARTH |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104060272 | |
| Download: ML13302B974 (14) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 0")
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,)
Docket Nos
-3 6 1OJ_
'25~62 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
NRC STAFF RESPONSES TO TO THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES BY FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 2.740b, the following are the NRC Staff responses to interrogatories propounded by Intervenors Friends of the Earth, et al. (FOE) on February 18, 1981. Although not wholly in conformance with the procedural pro visions of 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(ii), the interrogatories are responded to voluntarilly by the Staff in the interest of assuring the development of an adequate record in this proceeding.
NRC STAFF RESPONSES Interrogatory No. 1:
State whether the N.R.C. (or F.E.M.A.) will reqiuire the state and local governments, and other off-site assist agencies, to consider the impacts of a major earthquake upon their emergency response plans.
NRC Staff Response:
The NRC Staff objects to this interrogatory for it requests informa tion beyond the scope of FOE's admitted contention in the area of emergency planning.
By its Memorandum and Order of January 27, 1978, at 8104060 a7a
-2 pp. 4-5 the Licensing Board admitted FOE Contention 4 for discovery purposes. That contention questioned the adequacy of the Applicant's emergency plans because of the jurisdictional diversity of the several state and local agencies involved and their allegedly limited capabili ties. The thrust of FOE's Contention is that the emergency plans are complex, overlapping and difficult to implement and so are consequently inadequate.
Nowhere does the Contention suggest that earthquakes should be considered in deternining the adequacy of the emergency plans.
This reading of FOE's Contention is confirmed by an examination of its Inter rogatory Responses to the Applicant of July 28, 1973 and its Interrogatory Responses to the NRC Staff also of July 28, 1978. Those Responses answering Applicant and Staff questions concerning the nature of the FOE Contention define the areas of concern to be those stated in the Contention itself, i.e., jurisdictional diversity, inadequate funding and staffing of the entities involved, and geographical and roadway restraints and nearness to population centers posing difficulties to plan implementation.
Earthquake concerns are nowhere identified. The Commissions regulations provide that "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding", that dis covery "shall relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identified by the Commission or the presiding officer in the prehearing (conference) order" and that "information sought (must appear) reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence".
10 CFR 2.740(b)(1) and Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Alleghany Electric Cooperative Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 322 (1980).
The instant interrogatory does
-3 not relate to any contention admitted by the Licensing Board.
Furthermore, discovery on this subject does not appear "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence". Accordingly, the Staff objects to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 2:
If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the negative, sate how these emergency plans will be adequately coordinated and inte grated in order to protect the public health and safety in the event of a major earthquake.
Interrogatory No. 3:
If the answer to interrogatory number 1 is in.the affirmative, state whether the N.R.C. (or F.E.M.A.) will direct the state and local govern ments to revise their emergency plans to include the possible impacts of a major earthquake upon transportation routes, communications systems, medical facilities, etc.
Interrogatory No. 4:
If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state when the N.R.C. (or F.E.M.A.) will direct the state and local governments to revise their plans.
NRC Staff Response:
Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, and 4 follow from and presume a response to Interrogatory No. 1. As the Staff has objected to Interrogatory No.
1, no response to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is called for.
Interrogatory No. 5:
Is the N.R.C. of the position that an earthquake which exceeds SSE levels will cause damage to more than one reactor located at the same site?
-4 NRC Staff Response:
The Staff objects to this interrogatory for it does not relate to FOE's contention in the emergency planning area. FOE Contention 4 questions the adequacy of emergency plans with respect to implementation given the nature of the jurisdictional diversity and capabilities of state and local agencies involved.
Nowhere does the contention speak to the emergency plan implementation in the event of an earthquake. Nor do the discovery responses of FOE referred to in the NRC Response to Inter rogatory No.
1 identify earthquakes as a concern. Thus the information sought is not relevant to an issue in controversy. Furthermore, the question does not otherwise appear to be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" and therefore is not proper discovery. 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1) and the Susquehanna case, supra. Accord ingly, the Staff objects to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 6:
If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state whether the N.R.C. has directed applicants to evaluate the possible effects of a "simultaneous release", as defined in 10 CFR 100.10.
Interrogatory No. 7:
If the answer to interrogatory number 5 is in the negative, state the N.R.C. position on the issue of "simultaneous release" caused by a major earthquake.
NRC Staff Response:
Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7 follow from and presume a response to Interrogatory No. 5. As the Staff has objected to Interrogatory No. 5, no response to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7 is called for.
-5 Interrogatory No. 8:
State whether F.E.M.A. has approved the emergency plans of any of the following jurisdictions:
(a) Orange County Dep't of Health (b) San Diego County O.D.P.
(c) State O.E.S.
(d) City of San Clemente (e) City of San Juan Capistrano (f) State parks and Recreation Dep't.
(g) U.S. Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton FEMA Response:
As of March 27, 1981, FEMA has not approved the emergency plans of the jurisdictions listed in above. They will not be considered for approval until after they have been evaluated in the context of an exercise. The nature of the FEMA review is presented in the FEMA Proposed Rule, Appendix B to "Report to Congress on Status of Emergency Response Planning for Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0755, a copy of which is attached..
Interrogatory No. 9:
State whether the emergency plans of any of the following jurisdic tions have been found to be adequately coordinated and integrated with applicants and other off-site agencies:
(a) Orange County D of H (b) San Diego County O.D.P.
(c) State O.E.S.
(d) City of San Clemente
6 (e) City of San Juan Capistrano (f) State Parks (g) U.S. Marines FEMA Response:
The jurisdictions around San Onofre have developed a joint Inter agency Agreement and Evacuation Procedure for the San Onofre plume exposure pathway EPZ, dated December 1980.
FEMA is in the process of examining the procedure to determine its adequacy. However, pending the completion of an exercise, FEMA is unable to evaluate the effectiveness of that agreement.
Interrogatory No. 10:
State whether applicants will be required to conduct an emergency response exercise with state and local governments designed to test the integration and coordination of the emergency response plans.
NRC Staff Response:
Yes.
Interrogatory No. 11:
If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affinative, state with specificity the requirements of such an exercise.
NRC Staff Response:
The exercise will be a full-scale exercise of licensee and local authorities' response capability, using a general emergency as the initiating event as discussed in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section F.
There are no specific regulatory requirements defining the details of such exercises.
-7 Interrogatory No. 12:
State whether applicants will be required to have an adequate public warning system installed and working prior to N.R.C. approvalof appli cants emergency plan.
NRC Staff Response:
Yes.
Interrogatory No. 13:
If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the negative, what is the N.R.C. schedule for implementation of such public warning system.
NRC Staff Response:
As the NRC Staff response to the foregoing interogatory was in the affirmative, no response to this interrogatory is required.
Interrogatory No. 14:
State the schedule for implementation of the NUREG-0654, Appendix II required meteorological instrumentation and procedures.
NRC Staff Response:
The Staff objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of FOE's contentions and as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, the Staff provides the following response.
The schedule for implementation has been described in Annex I to Appendix II of NUREG-0654.
Interrogatory No. 15:
State the schedule for implementation of the required radiological monitoring systems.
-8 NRC Staff Response:
The Staff objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of FOE's contentions and as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, the Staff provides the following response.
The schedule for implementation for the radiological monitoring system has been described in Enclosure 2 of NUREG-0737.
Interrogatory No. 16:
State whether applicants have provided a Public Information and Education plan as required by NUREG-0654, Section G.
Interrogatory No. 17:
If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, provide a copy of such plan.
NRC Staff Response:
The Staff objects to Interrogatories Nos. 16 and 17 as beyond the scope of FOE's contentions and as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, the Staff provides the following responses.
.The Applicants have been working with local authorities on a Public Information and Education Program. The program will be directed to the resident and visitor population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and contiguous areas.
The Applicants has informed the Staff that the program will be developed by April 1, 1981.
As of April 1, 1981, the program was not yet available to the NRC Staff.
Interrogatory No. 18:
If the answer to interrogatory number 16 is in the negative, state the schedule for implementation of the NUREG-0654, Section G required plan.
NRC Staff Response:
As the response to Interrogatory No. 16 was not in the negative, no response to this interrogatory is required.
Interrogatory No. 19:
State with specificity how the N.R.C. will test the adequacy of the applicants Public Information and Education plan.
FEMA Response:
The Staff objects to this interrogatory as beyond the scope of FOE's contentions and as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adiissible evidence.
However, the Staff provides the following response from FEMA.
Under the Memorandum of Understanding with FEMA, which is included as Appendix E of NUREG-0755, the NRC has agreed that FEMA will have lead agency responsibility for testing the adequacy of the Applicants' Public Information and Evacuation Plan.
This reflects the intent of the President's Directive of December 7, 1979.
FEMA will review and comment on all public information and education materials proposed for use by the Applicants and advise the NRC Staff of any deficiencies in these materials. In addition, FEMA will use a public survey questionnaire designed to reveal the extent to which the public understands the basic essentials of response to a nuclear power plant
01 10 emergency. The details of the public survey are under development and awaiting approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
interrogatory No. 20:
Is the N.R.C. of the position that an independent review of the emergency plans every two years adequately protects the public health and safety?
NRC Staff Response:
The NRC Staff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds of vagueness. The Staff does not understand the term "independent review" nor does the Staff understand to whom the term applies.
The Staff further objects to this interrogatory as it seeks to elicit information concerning periodic emergency plan review, a matter which is not in contention in this case.
Furthermore, the question does not otherwise appear to be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" and therefore is not proper discovery. 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1) and the Susquehanna case, supra.
In addition, the interrogatory is objectionable for it is a challenge to the Commission's regulations which set out the requirements for the frequency of emergency plan training, review and updating. Under the terms of the Commission's regulations, specifically 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections F and G, emergency plans must be tested and must include provisions for periodic review and updating.
To the extent that this interrogatory seeks discovery with respect to the frequency for emergency plan testing different than those set down in Appendix E, it challenges the Commission's regulations. Accordingly, the Staff objects to this interrogatory.
11 Interrogatory No. 21:
If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state whether any studies or investigations have been performed to determine the tUrn-over rate of personnel involved in the emergency response.
Interrogatory No. 22:
If the answer to the foregoing interrogatory is in the affirmative, state:
(a) the name, address, capacity and occupation of each person making such study or investigation; (b) the date or dates of such study or investigation; (c) whether any reports of such person or persons were reduced to writing; (d) in whose possession or custody such reports presently repose; (a) whether you will make such reports available to intervenors to inspect and copy without the necessity of a formal motion to produce; and (f) a summary of the findings of each study and investigation and the basis for such findings.
NRC Staff Response:
Interrogatories Nos. 21 and 22 follow from and presume a response to Interrogatory No. 20. As the Staff objected to Interrogatory No. 20, no response to Interrogatories Nos. 21 and 22 are called for.
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER The Staff has objected to a number of the interrogatories propounded by FOE on several grounds as is specifically set out in the NRC Staff Responses, supra.
The Staff has argued that a large number of FOE's interrogatories are beyond the scope of FOE's contentions, and also not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
12 In certain instances, the Staff has responded but without waiving its objections.
The Staff has also cited vagueness as an objection with respect to Interrogatory No..20, and also that that interrogatory challenges the Commission's regulations.
Consequently, the Staff moves the Licensing Board pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(c), and for good cause shown, to issue an order that discovery be limited to matters in controversy, to matters which would be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and to matters which do not challenge Commission regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
- ch rd K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 1st day of April, 1981
UNITED STATES OF ARICA JELEm IELAIORY COMMISSION 8EFORE TH ATUNIC SAFETY AID LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
saIME CAL IFRNLA EDISp4 COMANY )
uaket Noe.
50-301 O.L.
)
50-362 0.L.
(Sen Onofre Nuclear Genrating
)
Station, Units Z and 3 AFFIDAVID OF Marshall E. Sanders I so Asistant Director, Policy Plwning Radiological Emergency Preparedness Uivision, Federal Energeny Manage Ageny The Responsee to Friend's of the Earth Interrogatories served on February 18, 1981 and numbered 8, 9 and 19 were prepared under my supervision.
The respon given are true and accurate to the best of my kwwledge.
1 oeclare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 31. 1981.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY)
Docket Nos.
50-301 O.L.
50-362 O.L.
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN R. SEARS I am a senior reactor safety engineer in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's Emergency Preparedness Licensing Branch.
The Responses to Friend's of the Earth Interrogatories served on February 18, 1981 and numbered 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 were prepared by me.
The responses given are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on March 31, 1981.
Jon. Sears