ML13303A498
| ML13303A498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1981 |
| From: | Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | GUARD |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106050391 | |
| Download: ML13303A498 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
JUN, 0 4 198 1 James L. Kelley, Chairman kU A
W 3Elizabeth B. Johnson Cadet H. Hand 0)4 798 T In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL. )
Docket Nos.(<J)-OL
)
50-362-OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
June 3, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rulings on Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories)
Intervenor GUARD served a set of interrogatories on the NRC Staff on February 20, 1981 concerning emergency planning. The Staff's response of April 1 objected to virtually all of these interrogatories, in whole or in part; however, the Staff went on to answer many of them. Thereafter, GUARD filed a timely motion to compel and Staff answered the motion. This memorandum and order rules on the GUARD motion.
Although we are sustaining many of the Staff's objections, we are also directing the Staff to answer, or.answer more completely, many of these interrogatories. It appears that FEMA may be in a better position than the Staff to answer some of these interrogatories. The Staff has discretion to answer the interrogatory or to refer it to FEMA. If referred to FEMA, however, the same deadline for service of answers must be met.
For the most part, GUARD's motion to compel did not include interroga tory-by-interrogat6ry explanations why they disagreed with the Staff's 810605 Oo G
2 objections. This made the Board's job more difficult in areas, such as adequacy of medical services, seemingly having little or no relevance to GUARD's con tentions. GUARD is not foreclosed by our rulings here from urging the relevance of such areas in finalizing contentions, but it will have to do so without the benefit of some information it otherwise might have obtained.
Interrogatory 1.
We agree with the Staff that parts (a)-(c) are not within GUARD's admitted contentions because these parts relate to matters which might initiate a general emergency. The thrust of GUARD's second contention is whether the Applicants emergency plans can be effectively implemented, once an emergency has occurred.
However, the remaining portions of this multiple part question--(d)-(l)--are within GUARD's contention 2. These portions-of this interrogatory should be answered, except for parts (i)-(j) which go into such a level of detail that they should have been directed to the Applicants.
The Staff's contention that these questions would require it to perform an impermissible degree of "study" is not well founded. Most of this informa tion should have already been submitted--e.g., the number of persons that might have to be evacuated from areas near the plant. And although some of these questions might require some study and analysis, it would appear that study and
_analysis of.this kind of information is so central to review of a plan that it would have to be done before a plan could be approved. If it were not done, then the Staff would be under an obligation to provide to GUARD the reasons why.
Interrogatory 2.
We agree with the Staff that this interrogatory is outside of FOE's admitted contentions, with the exception of one aspect of (b).
The Staff should
3 state whether factors which might support a decision not to evacuate offsite populations would include, in-this case, any.unusual difficulties in evacuating offsite populations.
Interrogatory 3.
The Staff objects to this and a number of other interrogatories on the ground that answers are reasonably obtainable from another source, citing 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(ii). In this instance, the.Staff's objection is well taken, because the information sought is fairly clearly defined and objective data.
In other cases, the information sought might be sufficiently judgmental that a different answer might reasonably be expected from the Staff and the Applicant.
That is -the thrust of GUARD's position--that answers to the same questions should be required from the Staff and the Applicants "if relevant information which is different than that which Applicant has provided will be discovered."
We can agree generally with this formulation, as an abstract proposition. Difficulties may arise, however, in applying it to particular interrogatories. Notwith standing its objection, the Staff provided a responsive answer.
Interrogatory 4.
The Staff's objection is the same as to interrogatory 3, and it is well taken. Again the Staff nevertheless provided an answer.
Anterrogatory 6.
The Staff is directed to respond. This is a case where the perspectives.
of the Staff and the Applicant might be expected to vary.
Interrogatory 7.
The Staff is to answer this interrogatory because, again, their answers might differ from those of the Applicants. If not, they can simply agree with
4 the Applicants' answers. This interrogatory is arguably within the scope of GUARD's second contention, because it concerns the handling of certain contin gencies after evacuation has been undertaken.
Interrogatories 8-10.
The Staff should answer these interrogatories about "spontaneous" evacua tion. They are clearly within the scope of GUARD's contention 2; the Staff's claim that they are not is not elaborated.
Interrogatory 11.
The Staff's objection that this information is obtainable from the Appli cants is sustained.
Interrogatory 12.
It is debatable whether this interrogatory is within GUARD's second con tention. In any event, FEMA has supplied a responsive answer.
Interrogatory 13.
The Staff's objections to this interrogatory are sustained. Parts (a)-(c) are obtainable from another source (the Applicants), and there is no reason to think.that the Staff's answers would be any different. Part (d) and (e) are not within GUARD's admitted contentions.
Interrogatory 14.
.-The Staff's objection that this information is obtainable from another source (again, the Applicants) is sustained.
Interrogatory 17.
The Staff's objection to.parts (a), (b) and (d) are sustained; this in formation is available from the Applicant. The Staff should answer part (c).
The effectiveness of available shelter protection would.be relevant to evacuation
decisions and coordination problems attendant thereto. GUARD's contention 2 refers generally to "protective measures," and is not limited to evacuations.
Interrogatories 18-19.
Although the Staff objects to these interrogatories, it has nevertheless provided responsive answers.
Interrogatories 20-23.
The Staff's objection --
that these interrogatories concerning age data of various categories of persons are not within GUARD's admitted contentions-is sustained.
Interrogatory 24.
The Staff's objection that this information (about emergency workers to take care of workers exposed to high radiation levels) is available from the Applicants is sustained..
Interrogatories 25-26.
Although the Staff objects to.these interrogatories, it has nevertheless provided responsive answers.
Interrogatory 27.
This interrogatory seeks data on the numbers and training of people for radiological monitoring. The Staff's objection that this information is
.availab.le from another source (the Applicants) is sustained.
However, this information is relevant to GUARD's second contention in that insufficient numbers of trained monitors could disrupt the implementation of an evacuation plan or other protective measures. GUARD could subpoena representatives of the various response agencies to testify on thi.s question and related questions.
In addition, it might be possible for GUARD to obtain this information voluntarily from those agencies by simply writing to them.
- e 0
6 Interrogatory 28.
The Staff's objection that this interrogatory about the qualifications of health personnel is not within GUARD's contentions is sustained.
Interrogatory 29.
The Staff's objection to this interrogatory is sustained because this information is available from the Applicants. In any event, most of this information is currently being provided to all parties.
Interrogatory 30.
The Staff's objection to this interrogatory, that it seeks information outside of GUARD's contentions, is sustained. GUARD's first contention con cerns adequacy of funding to State and local response agencies, but says nothing about the Applicants' funds.
Interrogatories 31, 32, 34 and 36.
Although the Staff objects to these interrogatories, it has nevertheless provided responsive answers.
Interrogatory 33.
The Staff's answer to this interrogatory about FEMA review is in the process of being updated. No further response is necessary until after the informal discovery session.
-Interrogatory 35.
This interrogatory concerns provision of alternative evacuation routes in the event of bad weather, high traffic density, or specific radiological conditions. The Staff's unelaborated objection that this interrogatory goes beyond the scope of GUARD's contentions is difficult to understand. This interrogatory is plainly and directly relevant to GUARD's second contention, which explicitly includes evacuation and traffic problems. The Staff goes on
7 to provide a two sentence response to this interrogatory which is inadequate.
The Staff is directed to provide a fuller response to this interrogatory, including its or FEMA's judgment about the adequacy of alternate evacuation routes under the conditions referenced in the interrogatory.
In summary, the Staff is directed to provide answers (or more responsive answers) to the following interrogatories:
1, 2, 6, 7, 8-10, 17 and 35.
These answers are to be served by Express Mail or'other expedited means of service by June 12, 1981.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- 3mes L. Kelldy, Chair n ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3d day of June, 1981.