ML18025A056
| ML18025A056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1979 |
| From: | Silberg J, Yuspeh A Pennsylvania Power & Light Co, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18025A056 (9) | |
Text
lb UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safet and Licensin Board In the Matter of )
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6 LIGHT CO. )
and ) Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) 50-388
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS'NSWER TO "ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER INTERVENORS'NSWERS TO FIRST ROUND APPLICANT INTERROGATORIES" AND MOTION TO COMPEL'ISCOVERY On June 29, 1979, intervenor Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power ("ECNP") filed a document entitled "Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Intervenors'nswers to First Round Applicant Interrogatories". Notwithstanding its title, this document did not set forth answers to "Applicants'irst Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power" and "Applicants'irst Request to Intervenor Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power for the Production of Documents", is-sued on May 25, 1979. Instead, ECNP's "Answers" set forth a blanket objection to Applicants'iscovery requests and moved the Licensing Board to issue a protective order which would re-lieve ECNP of any responsibility to respond to those requests.
Applicants respectfully oppose ECNP's motion, and request that the Board issue an order compelling ECNP to respond to Appli-cants'ay 25, 1979 discovery requests within ten (10) days from the date of issuance of such an Order by the Board.
\Q 4~
In its filing, ECNP characterizes the Applicants'iscovery requests as "extraordinarily burdensome, oppressive, and utterly pointless" and bases its request for a protective order on this characterization.
Applicants'iscovery requests are not burdensome, nor were they intended to impose any undue burden on the intervenor.
Rather, the interrogatories and request for documents were in-tended to seek out the basis for intervenors'ontentions and information of which ECNP is aware relevant to those contentions.
This information is necessary if Applicants are to address ECNP's concerns during the hearings. " Additionally, the discovery is intended to determine whether ECNP is presently aware of any new information or any information that is inconsistent with that presently known to the Applicants. Without such knowledge, Appli-cants cannot know which issues need to be addressed at the evi-dentiary hearings. ECNP's answers should help define the areas of dispute between the parties and avoid the needless wasting of time litigating issues over which there is no dispute. ECNP's it filing explicitly indicates that has in its possession con-siderable information and documents. While ECNP states that "the majority of information in the possession of ECNP" consists of l
"information, documents, etc. . . . in the public domain," ENCP Answers, p. 2, that fact is of no use to Applicants unless Appli-cants are told what this information is and how it relates to the contentions.
Even if Applicants'iscovery request could be considered burdensome, it would not justify ECNP's across-the-board refusal
to answer ~an of Applicants'nterrogatories or document request.
The Appeal Board has clearly ruled that such a blanket objection cannot stand.
From the outset, appellants steadfastly maintained that compliance with any por-tion of the discovery requests would en-tail an undue burden--a position adheredsub-to even after the Licensing Board had stantially reduced the scope of the dis-covery. But, as should have been perfectly apparent, some of the documents could have been furnisheK, and some. of the interroga-tories answered, without the imposition of any significant burden. In this connection, it is obvious, of course, that compliance with a discovery request invariably will re-quire some exertion of effort. But it equally obvious that a claim of undue burden is (even if advanced by a non-party to the litigation) must be founded on much more than that some expense or inconvenience may have to be incurred in responding to the discovery.
We think that it is the manifest obli-gation of persons against whom discovery is sought to refrain from asserting a blanket claim of burdensomeness which neither is nor can be substantiated.. In the future, a licensing board confronted with an all-en-compassing indiscriminate claim of burden will be justified in rejecting the claim in its entirety upon a finding of lack of merit with respect to at least one of the discovery items. Further, the board need not consider whether a response to a particular item would be burdensome unless, with respect to that item, specific reasons for the claim are as-signed.
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-122, 6 AEC 322, 325, fn. 14 (1973) . 'Original emphasis.)
To avoid the necessity of ECNP's supplying information which it has already made available in this proceeding, Applicants have reviewed the "Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Answers to
First Round NRC Staff Interrogatories" to determine whether ECNP has answered Applicants'iscovery requests in any of the ECNP answers to NRC staff discovery. In some cases, Applicants'n-terrogatories are sufficiently similar to the Staff's that an answer to the Staff's would suffice. In a few of these instances, ECNP's answer is adequate and Applicants therefore withdraw their corresponding interrogatories.* In the remainder of those cases,**
ECNP has failed to adequately answer the Staff's interrogatories and thus the information Applicants seek remains unavailable.
Section 2.740(f) of the Commission regulations provide that if a party upon whom interrogatories or a request for production of documents is served fails to respond or object to the request, or any part thereof, the party submitting the discovery requests may move the presiding officer for an order compelling a response in accordance with the request. Applicants respectfully submit that ECNP has failed to show an adequate basis for failing to answer Applicants'iscovery requests. Applicants have therefore requested that the Board deny ECNP's motion for protective order, and that the Board issue an order pursuant to 10 CFR g2.740(f) compelling ECNP to respond to Applicants'iscovery requests
- Applicants'nterrogatories 4A-2, 7(a)-1, 7(c) -2 and 19-1.
(These correspond to Staff interrogatories S-4.1, S-7.2, S-7.12 and 13, and G-1 respectively.)
(S-1 13') 1B 2 (S 1 12) 1B 3 (S 1 13) 3 1 (S 3 2) 3 2 (S 3 1) g g ~ p p 3-9 (S-3.3), 5-1 (S-5.1), 6-1 (S-6.1), 7 (a).-2 (S-7.1), 7 (b) -2 (S 7 4) g 7 (c) 3 (S 7 ll) 8 1 (S 8 1) g 9 2 (S 9 2)
~ g 9-5 (S-9.5 and 9.6). (Corresponding Staff interrogatories are 9 3 (S 9 1) g in parentheses.)
(except for those which Applicants have withdrawn) within ten (10) days from the date of the Board's order.
Respectfully submitted, I
SHAW / P TTMAN~ POTTS 6 TROWBRI DGE By Jay E..Silberg Alan R. Yuspeh 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 331-4100 Dated: July 16, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safet and Licensin Board In the Matter of )
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER LIGHT CO. )
and ) Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERAT IVE g INC ) 50-388
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies r
of the foregoing "Applicants Answer to 'Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Intervenors'nswers to First Round Applicant Interrogatories'nd Motion to Compel Discovery" were served by deposit in the U. S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 16th day of July, 1979, to all those on the attached Service List..
Jay E. Sz.lberg Dated: July 16, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COHHISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Hatter of )
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COHPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-387 and ) 50-388 3~ LGEHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
SERVICE LIST Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Chairman Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Board Panel Washington, D. C.
r 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Hr. Glenn O. Bright Environmental Coalition on Atomic Sa.fety and Licensing Nuclear Power Board Panel 433 Orlando Avenue U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State College, Pennsylvan'a 16801 Washington,'. C. 20555 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates Dr. Oscar H. Paris c/o Gerald Schultz, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing 500 South River Street Board Panel Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Hrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairman The Citizens Against Nuclear Danger Atomic Sa fe" y and Licensing Post Office Box 377 Board Panel R. D. 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss'n Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603 Washington, D. C. 20555 Hs. Colleen Harsh Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 558 A, R. D. 54 Board Panel Ht. Top, Pennsylvania 18707 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Hr. Thoma.s H. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection James H. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Department of Env'ironmental Resources Office of the Executive Legal Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Director P. O. Box 2063 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Har isburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D. C. 20555 tq
~h.
0