ML13302C034
| ML13302C034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1981 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104280122 | |
| Download: ML13302C034 (9) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, )
)
50-362 OL San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
NRC STAFF ANSWER TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO GUARD'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO NRC STAFF INTRODUCTION On February 20, 1981, Intervenor GUARD propounded its first set of interrogatories to the NRC Staff. On April 1, 1981, the Staff filed its responses to the first set of interrogatories from GUARD and a motion for a protective order. On April 15, 1981, GUARD filed its motion to compel further answers to GUARD's first set of interrogatories to the NRC Staff (Motion) and accompanying memorandum (Memorandum).-/
DISCUSSION GUARD claims that the NRC Staff has "failed to respond or has responded evasively or incompletely to several of the Interrogatories filed by GUARD on February 20, 1981".2/ In the Staff's view, its objections 1/ We would note that GUARD's Motion was not timely filed, 10 CFR § 2.740(f) and good cause for its tardiness not having been demonstrated, is properly denied.
2/ Motion, p. 1.
0 4 28
-2 to GUARD's interrogatories were proper. The bases for the Staff objections were presented by the Staff in its April 1, 1981 responses.
The Staff will not reargue each and every objection in its answer to GUARD's Motion. The Staff relies on those arguments to sustain its motion for a protective order and consequently urges this Board to deny GUARD's motion to compel further answers of the Staff. With respect to certain of GUARD's arguments raised in its Motion, the Staff makes the following reply.
First, the Staff renews arguments raised in its interrogatory responses and motion for a protective order with respect to the scope of GUARD's contention. Although GUARD urges that it is not seeking to raise issues beyond its contention, none of GUARD's contentions encompass events which might initiate a general emergency. GUARD's contentions speak to the adequacy of the implementation and functioning of an emergency plan given an emergency. Concerns identified include funding and staffing of agencies involved, coordination and feasibility of evacuation given alleged increased freeway use and alleged increases in transient and resident populations. That this is a correct reading of GUARD's contentions is confirmed by an examination of its interroga tory responses to the Applicant of August 17, 1978 and its interrogatory responses to the NRC Staff of October 17, 1978. Nowhere has GUARD shown how its sought after discovery relates to any matter in controversy or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
With respect to its Interrogatory No. 1, GUARD argues in its Memorandum that a response is needed as the response will unveil "the assumption upon which the NRC bases its review and approval of the various
-3 emergency plans of Applicant, State and local jurisdications."3/ However, the Staff review is not based on an examination of an emergency plan in the context of any specific scenario. Rather, emergency plans must meet the 16 criteria identified in the Commissions regulations, specifically 10 CFR § 50.47. Conformance to these criteria will permit an emergency response to a wide variety of scenarios which should in the first instance be the function of an emergency plan.
GUARD goes on to argue that an NRC Staff response to Interrogatory No. 1 would not require an extended study or data gathering effort on the part of the NRC Staff.4/ Quite clearly, the GUARD interrogatory asks for the definition of a specific scenario and then requests an extensive amount of information with respect to this scenario. On its face, this would be an extended effort and meets the test of Houston Lighting and Power Company, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-11, 11 NRC 477, 478-79 (1980). That case holds that a party may not be required to perform extended research by means of discovery. The Staff's objections should be sustained.
With respect to Interrogatory No. 2, again GUARD seeks extensive information with respect to an event initiating a general emergency, a subject which is beyond the scope of GUARD's contentions. As stated above, the adequacy of an emergency plan is judged by its conformance to the 16 criteria of 10 CFR § 50.47. Such an evaluation would determine the ability of an emergency plan to respond to a wide variety of accidents.
3/ Memorandum, p. 2.
4/ Ibid, p. 3.
0
-4 Indeed, GUARD appears to recognize that this is the fundamental approach to emergency planning when it refers to NUREG-0654, as setting out "the overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose savings for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offside doses in excess of Protective Action Guidelines."5/
In summary then, the Staff would continue to object to this interrogatory on the ground that events initiating a general emergency are not within the scope of GUARD's contentions and furthermore that response to this interrogatory would require the Staff to perform a study or analysis to provide a response which is objectionable discovery.
GUARD goes on to state that "NRC Staff has objected to most of GUARD's remaining interrogatories on several grounds, including grounds that they are 'beyond the scope of GUARD's contentions'".
GUARD then goes on to simply state that it "... believes that this information is needed in order to show whether the plans provide 'reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken in the event of an emer gency'" (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E).
GUARD's arguments on this score are general and not made with respect to any specific interrogatories.
Consequently, these arguments do not apprise the Staff of the particulars of GUARD's concern and accordingly the Staff cannot answer. The Staff will rest on objections raised in its response to interrogatories and 5/ Ibid, p. 2.
6/ Id.
-5 motion for a protective order to the effect that the information sought by GUARD in those interrogatories is beyond the scope of its contentions.
Finally, GUARD notes that the NRC Staff has objected to many of GUARD's interrogatories on the ground that the information sought was reasonably available from another source, namely the Applicants. The Staff objected to a series of GUARD interrogatories on the ground that the same interrogatory had been posed to the Applicants and that the Applicants had provided a response. The response provided by the Applicants was apparently satisfactory to GUARD as it has filed no motion to compel against the Applicants. GUARD argues that it asked the same question of both Applicants and Staff as it should have resulted in "markedly different responses" because of the distinct roles of Staff and Applicants in this proceeding.7/ Accepting this argument would be tantamount to rejecting carte blanche an objection to discovery provided to the Staff by the Rules of Practice.
(10 CFR § 2.720(h)(2)(ii)).
GUARD points to interrogatory No. 29 which contains a request for correspondence to which Applicants were a party. GUARD goes on to assert that the Staff's access to information of this kind can be expected to be different than that of the Applicants.
However, an examination of Interrogatory No. 29 reveals that that interrogatory sought correspond ence which had passed between Applicants and any of the state and local response agencies and/or Federal agencies responsible for concurring in planned adequacy..
As one party to the correspondence requested 7/
Ibid, p. 4.
-6 would have been the Applicants, the Applicants were the proper source to provide all of the information which GUARD apparently seeks by this interrogatory.
In summary, the Staff may properly object to GUARD interrogatories which seek information from the Staff which is "reasonably obtainable from any other source."
10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(ii) and Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 322 (1980).
CONCLUSION The Staff raised proper objections in its responses of April 1, 1981 to certain GUARD interrogatories directed to the Staff on February 20, 1981.
Arguments raised by GUARD in its motion to compel further answers are unpersuasive. The Board should deny GUARD's motion and should issue an order protecting the Staff from excessive discovery on the grounds 8/ With respect to GUARD's reference to a potential discrepency with respect to the data for the proposed emergency planning drill, it is the Staff's understanding that the drill, which had been origi nally scheduled for April, 1981 was tentatively rescheduled for May, 1981 during the interval that elasped between the filing of the Applicants' response and the Staff response. As the exercise is scheduled by the Applicants, scheduling information with respect to it should properly come from the Applicants which is also the NRC Staff source of this information.
-7 presented by the Staff in its responses to GUARD interrogatories and motion for a protective order of April 1, 1981.
Res ectfully submitted, Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of April, 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. 50-361 OL ET AL.
)
50-362 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO GUARD'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO NRC STAFF" 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 through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 24th day of April, 1981:
- James L. Kelley, Chairman, David R. Pigott, Esq.
Administrative Judge Samuel B. Casey, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board John Hendez, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chickering & Gregory Washington, U.C.
20555 Three Embarcadero Center Twenty-Third Floor Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.,
San Francisco, California 94111 Administrative Judge c/o Bodega Marine Laboratory Alan R. Watts, Esq.
University of California Rourke & Woodruff P. 0. Box 247 10555 North Main Street Bodega Bay, California 94923 Suite 1020 Santa Ana, California 92701 Ars. Elizabeth B. Johnson, Administrative Judge Richard J. Wharton, Esq.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory University of San Diego School P. 0. Box X, Building 3500 of Law, Alcala Park Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 San Diego, California 92110 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
!irs.
Lyn Harris Hicks J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.
GUARD Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
3908 Calle Ariana California Public Utilities Commission San Clemente, California 92672 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102
-2 Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
A. S. Carstens James A. Beoletto, Esq.
2071 Caminito Circulo Norte Southern California Edison Company Mt. La Jolla, California 92037 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel David W. Gilman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert G. Lacy Washington, D.C. 20555 San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Diego, California 92112 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 1695 West Crescent Avenue Suite 222
- Secretary Anaheim, California 92701 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
Washington, D.C.
20555