ML19208C365
| ML19208C365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1979 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909260123 | |
| Download: ML19208C365 (6) | |
Text
.
MM D
1 y,g k
7 Dg.,/Sygj UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q
3=s.,%
P
~
4 G
In the Matter of SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC 8c GAS COMPANY Docket No. 50-3 95-O L (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, f
Unit 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DISCOVERY The Intervenor, Mr. Bursey, submitted interrogatories to the Applicant dated September 15, 1978.
On October 2, Applicant responded to some of the interrogatories and objected to others.
The interrogatories objected to are set forth as an appendix to this order.
Mr. Bursey did not respond to Applicant's objections.
Applicant makes a blanket objection based on irrelevancy to all challenged interr6gatories.
The controlling regulation in 10 CFR $ 2.740(b)(1) which provides for discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject aatter involved in the pro-ceeding.
This section also provides that it is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if the information sought appears reasonably cal-culated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The interrogatories objected to by the Applicant, except for Interrogatories 33, 41 and 42, do not appear reasonably calcula-ted to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in the 1015 104 7 909260l2}g C,
. evidentiary hearing because the interrogatories are not relevant to any of the matters in controversy.
Unless there exists some rational basis on its face why a challenged interrogatory could relate to the issues in con-troversy it is difficult to explain why the interrogatory is irrelevant.
We cannot state why, for example, Interrogatory 28, relating to legal fees, is not relevant to, say, Contention A4, relating to seismic activity other, than to repeat simply that it is irrelevant.
This is the problem with most of the interroga-tories objected to by Applicant.
Therefore, in declining, to enforce the challenged interrogatories, we have discussed only those which appear to us to have some arguable relationship to
. 'T the issues.
4 Applicant has mooted its objections to Interrogatories 3,
[., /
().U 5 and 9 by answering them while objecting.
They require no further discussion.
Applicant has explained why Interrogatory 23 could have related to Contention A6.
However the Board, in its order of
'S, April 9, 1979, dismissed this contention when Intervenor Bursey
[
- .. L def ended the Staff 's motion for summary judgment solely on the t; e
Q basis that the Applicant would not meet the NPDES permit require-
,]..gt ments.
As we explained in that order and in the Prehearing Con-s ference Order of April 24, 1978, this is not an accepted issue I
for determination in this proceeding.
S0! dici 1015 105
. Interrogatory 33 relates to Applicant's capacity to reduce the level of worker exposure to radiation.
Except for its
~
blanket objection, Applicant does not refer to the relevance of this question.
The interrogatory is relevant to Contention A10 and the Board's possible question in connection with A10 (Prehearing Conference Order, pp. 11 & 12).
Applicant responds to Interrogatory 33 by stating that it has. carried out no analysis of its capacity to reduce worker exposure.
Applicant states that the interrogatory is objectional because Applicant may not be required to undertake research or compile data not readily known to it.
There is no need to sustain Applicant's Njection because it has answered the interrogatory.
Applicant h.%
i not know the answer and has so stated.
This is a permissible
?l, sponse to a factual interrogatory.
However if Applicant now
, ; sa_
=
possesses information responsive to the interrogatory it should
- t kJ provide it.
,7 Interrogatory 41 could have related to Contention A10 if it had requested information concerning the nature of any such advice to the Board of Directors and Stockholders, but the thrust of the interrogatory is limited to whether in f ac t 5
advice has been or will be given.
The relevance of the question is not apparent.
The interrogatory is also defective in that it assumes the existence of "the informa tion" reflected in Con-tention A10, which of course is not established fact and is denied by Applicant.
The objection is sustained.
1 - eie 1015 106
. Interrogatory 42 would require Applicant to assume in its response that there is a continuous rise in cancer rates around nuclear facilities.
Applicant is not required to accept this premise in formulating a position.
Objection sustained.
ORDER Applicant's objections to Interrogatories 3, 5, and 9 are denied as moot.
Applicant has submitted an acceptable response to Interrogatory 33 but it should comply with the Board's directive to provide the information if it now exists.
Objections to Interrogatories 7, 18-22, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32 (2nd para.), and 43 are sustained on the basis of irrelevancy.
Objections to Interrogatories 23, 41 and 42 are sustained for the reasons discussed above.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD.
'OR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~ =~/
/e
/:.
~;<<'
/ Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of August, 1979.
Attachment:
As stated 00I d101 1015 107
APPENDIX INTERROGATORIES OBJECTED TO BY APPLICANT 3.
When does the Applicant plan to begin receiving nuclear fuel?
What is the present cost of Westinghouse fuel, the original cost?
5.
Why was the spent fuel handling building foundation poured on dirt rather than bedrock?
7.
What is the amount of the debt owed to the S.C. Public Service Authority for material and equipment used by the Applicant for construction of the Fairfield Pump Storage Facility?
What are the Applicant's plans for reimbursing the P.S.A.?
9.
Has the reactor vessel been moved since it was originally set?
If so, how was it re-anchored?
18.
Show how, given the construction cost overruns and rising fuel costs, the Summer Plant will be competitive with coal fired plants within the Applicant's system.
19.
What would the projected per Kw/hr cost be for stopping work on the nuclear reactor and converting the Summer facility to a coal fired boiler (consider all nuclear costs - dis-mantelling, long term waste storage).
~
20.
What is the Applicant's present reserve electrical capacity?
21.
What is the Kw. production capacity of Applicant's inactive generation facilities?
What is the retirement schedule for existing generating plants.
22.
What will the total Kw. generating capacity of SCE&G be when the Summer Plant goes on line, the reserve capacity?
23.
Please make available all correspondence between the Applicant and the Alden Research Laboratory, Worchester Polytech Institute, Holden, Mass.
24.
What is the cost projection of the restoration of the Applicant's inactive generating facilities?
25.
How much of the Applicant's electrical output is sold outside the state, how much af ter the Summer Plant comes on line?
28.
What has the Applicant spent in legal feesCund associated costs for the V.C. Summer licensing proceedings and inter-vention?
$ f, I l'U!
}hkb \\0
- 31.
Please make available all files and related documents the Applicant has on the Intervenor and the Palmetto Alliance.
32.
How many people will be employed at the Summer Plant during normal operation?
How many of these will be security per-sonnel?
[ Applicant objects to the.second part only].
33.
Is the Applicant capable of reducing the level of worker exposure (maximum permissible) by a factor of ten (from 5 rems a year to.5 rems a year)?
41.
Has the Applicant's Board of Directors and Stockholders been advised of the information on long term radiation effects as reflected by the Intervenor's Contention ten.
If not, will they be so advised?
42.
Should cancer rates around nuclear facilities continue to rise, at what level would the Applicant consider significant enough to warrant cessation of operation of the Summer Plant.
43.
What prompted the Applicant to "go nuclear"?
How could the decision be reversed?
0 1015 109
'