ML18025A728
| ML18025A728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1979 |
| From: | Silberg J, Yuspeh A Pennsylvania Power & Light Co, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18025A728 (7) | |
Text
June 27, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic S'a'fet
'and I'i'cense;n'oard In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC (Susquehanna Steam Units 1 and 2)
)
)
LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
Electric Station,
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-387 50-388 APPLICANTS'OTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INTERVENOR CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$2.740(f), Applicants hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("the Board" ) to issue an order compelling Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers
("CAND") to respond to "Applicants'irst Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers" and "Applicants'irst Request to Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers for the Production of Documents,"
both dated May 25, 1979, within ten (10) days from the date of issuance of such order by the Board.
In its Special Prehearing Conference Order, the Board provided that responses to first round discovery requests were to be served no later than June 29, 1979.
On June 16,
- 1979, CAND served upon Applicants a document titled "Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers'eplies to the Inter-rogatories of the NRC Staff and the Applicants and other Matters"
("CAND Replies" ).
In this document, CAND ob-jects "to each and every interrogatory question" in the Applicants'ay 25 filing.
CAND sets forth several reasons for its blanket objection.to Applicants'iscovery request.
- First, CAND alleges that the Commission has declared "a 90 day sus-pension (and possibly a longer duration) on certain licensing proceedings because of the Three Mile Island (TMI) disaster".
CAND Replies, p.
2.
While the NRC Staff may have indicated its intention not to issue new licenses. for a three month period, the Commission has said nothing which could be interpretted as halting licensing proceedings under way before atomic safety and licensing boards.
- Second, CAND asserts that Applicants'iscovery requests are "misdirected" and "not applicable".
CAND Replies, pp. 2-3.
While it is not entirely clear what the thrust of this objec-tion is, it appears that CAND is arguing that because the burden of proof is on Applicants, Applicants cannot seek dis-covery from intervenors.
'Zhis objection is contrary to the Commission's discovery regulations (10 CFR 552.740 2.741) and numerous NRC decisions.
As stated in Offshore Power
~Sstems (Manufacturing License for Floating nuclear Power Plants),
LBP-75-67, 2
NRC 813, 816-817 (1975),
Status as a party affords certain rights, including the right to ask questions; but it also involves -certain obligations, including the duty to answer questions of other parties to the proceeding.
A party may not insist upon his right to ask questions of other parties, while at the same time disclaiming any obligation to respond to questions from those other parties.
This is a base.c rule of any adjudicatory proceeding, whether it be a
judicial trial in court or an administra-tive hearing.
(original emphasis)
- Third, CAND objects to Applicants'iscovery because of its apparent objection to the wording of the admitted contentions.
CAND Replies, p.
3.
As'AND recognizes, CAND
- Replies,
- p. 4, the Commission's rules set a deadline for filing objections to the reframing of contentions in the Special Prehearing Conference Order.
Although CAND states that it did not. have tim'e to appeal be-fore this deadline, it neither sought additional time from the Board nor objected to the Order during the subsequent three month period.
In any case, CAND's dissatisfaction with the Special Prehearing Conference Order forms no basis for its failure to respond to Applicants'iscovery.
- Fourth, CAND states that some interrogatories are "unan-swerable" until CAND has received and analyzed information re-quested from other parties.
CAND Replies,
- p. 4.
Applicants'iscovery requests do not require CAND to receive or analyze information sought by CAND through discovery.
.Rather, Appli-cants are seeking information which CAND has and on which it
based its contentions.
If it does not have the information requested, CAND can say so in its answers.
Applicants are entitled to such discovery.
As to the permissible areas of dis-covery, the authorities are clear that interrogatories seeking specification, of the facts upon which a claim or con-tention is based are wholly proper, and the party may be required to answer questions which attempt to ascertain the basis for his claim or, for example, what deficiencies or defects were claimed to exist with respect to a particular'situation or cause.
Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2),
LBP-75-30, 1
NRC 579, 582 (1975). If CAND has no information and therefore cannot answer an interrogatory or document re-quest, it can simply state that it has no information.*
The same comment applies to CAND's statement that it has not yet selected witnesses who will testify on its behalf.
- Fifth, CAND objects to Applicants'iscovery because "the questioners have the answers already".
CAND Replies, p.
4.
Applicants'iscovery is intended to determine whether CAND is aware of any new information or any information which is incon-sistent with that known to Applicants.
Without such knowledge, Applicants cannot know evidentiary hearings.
of dispute between the which issues need to be addressed at the CAND's answers will help define the areas parties and avoid the needless wasting of time litigating issues over which there is no dispute.
- The.courts have held that if a party cannot furnish infor-mation and details, it may so state under 'oath".
'Id. at 583.
For these
- reasons, Applicants respectfully submit that CAND's objections are not supportable and that the Board should direct CAND to promptly answer Applicants'nterroga-tories (either by providing the information requested or stating that it has no such information) and. make available the documents requested.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW J PITTMANg POTTS 6 TROWBRIDGE Dated:
June 27, 1979 By Jay ilberg Ala R. Yuspeh 1800 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 (202)331-4100
p Ce June 27, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safet andicensin Board In the Matter of
'I PENNSYLVANIA POWER. 6 LIGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-387 50-388 CERTIFICATE OF SERVlCE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "Applicants'otion to Compel Discovery of Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers".
were served by deposit in the U. S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 27th day of June, 1979, to all those on the attached Service List.
Ja E.
x.lberg Dated:
June 27, 1979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC'AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER and ALLGEHENY ELECTRIC (Susquehanna Steam Units 1 and 2)
)
)
LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
Electric Station,
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-387 50-388 SERVICE LIST Secretary of the Commission U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555.
Dr.:Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates c/o Gerald Schultz, Esquire 500 Sguth River Street Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairman The Citizens Against Nuclear Danger Post Office Box 377 R.
D.
1 Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603
'I Ms. Colleen Marsh 558 A, R.
D.
44 Mt. Top, Pennsylvania 18707 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P.
O.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120