ML19211C158
| ML19211C158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1979 |
| From: | Carr A, Rachel Johnson PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001110003 | |
| Download: ML19211C158 (10) | |
Text
,
UNITED STATES OF AliERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOti BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-344 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO!!PANY,
)
et al.
)
(Control Building Proceeding)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
LICENSEE' S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS '
" MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE BY LICENSEE TO INTERVENORS' INTERROGATORIES DATED MOVEMBER 14, 1979;"
LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Portland General Electric Company (Licensee) files its response in opposition to Intervenors' " Motion To Compel Response By Licensee to Intervenors' Interrogatories Dated November 14, 1979" (" Motion"), dated December 13, 1979, and moves the Board for a protective order pursuant to 10 CFR S2.740(c).
Licensee opposes Intervenors' !!otion in its entirety and urges the Board to deny it in all respects because the Interrogatories which Intervenors request this Board tc order Licensee to answer seek information that is not relevant to Intervenors' admitted contentions in this proceeding and is not reasonably calculated tc lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
On November 14, 1979, Intervenors served Licensee with four Interrogatories.
Interrogatories 1-3 sought information with respect to NRC Staff Bulletin IE 79-14.
Interrogatory 1738 109 3001 110 003
4 sought information with respect to the arrest for drug-related offenses of some guards employed at the Trojan site.
On December 3, 1979, Licensee responded to Intervenors' Inter-rogatories by objecting to each of them on the grounds that the information sought by each was beyond the scope of the issues raised by Intervenors' contentions in this proceeding.
Intervenors have filed the instant Motion, dated December 13, 1979, which seeks an Order from this Board requiring Licensee to answer Intervenors' Interrogatories.
The Intervenors' Interrogatories seek information outside the scope of their admitted contentions and thus should be denied.
Intervenors' right to obtain discovery is limited to those matters which are relevant to the subject matter of their admitted contentions, and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The Commission's rules specifically provide that Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceed-ing.
[D]iscovery.
shall relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identified by the presiding officer.
10 CFR 2.-740 (b) (1)..
The Commission's rules permit discovery only of information or documents " relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding," and further limit the term
" subject matter" to the contentions admitted by the pre-siding officer.
Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell 1738 110
. Fuel Receiving and Storage Station) 5 NRC 489, 491-492 (1977).
The Appeal Board and Licensing Boards have consistently applied the rules in this fashion in ruling on discovery matters.
- See, e.g.,
Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 470-471 (1974); Boston Edison Company _, e t a_1_. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2),
2 NRC 159, 160-171 (1975); Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1), 7 NRC 1038, 1040-1041 (1978).
In determining relevancy for purposes of discovery, it is necessary to examine the issues involved.
Stanislaus, supra, at 1040.
It is evident that if Intervenors' Inter-rogatories do not meet the test of relevancy they are improper and Licensee's objections should be sustained.
An examination of the Interrogatories shows that Intervenors have failed to show their relevance to the contentions in the proceeding.
Interrogatories 1, 2,
and 3 As pointed out in License'e's objections of December 3, 1979, Intervenors' Interrogatories 1 and 2 seek information with respect to Licensee's responses to NRC's IE Bulletin 79-14, entitled " Seismic Analyses for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems" (supplied to the Board and parties by NRC Staff letter dated July 2, 1979).
In that Bulletin Licensee 1738 111 was requested, as were all other holders of NRC operating licenses, to verify that analytical input data for seismic analysis of safety-related piping systems conforms to the actually-installed piping configuration at Trojan.
Inter-rogatory 3 seeks information with respect to reviews conducted prior to August 7, 1979, of seismic qualification of certain equipment in the Plant discussed in Licensee's response to IE Bulletin 79-14.
Intervenors' Motion fails to show how such information could relate to any of their admitted contentions.
Intervenors simply argue that (Alll three interrogatories relate to CFSP con-tentions 3 and 4.
Both contentions deal with the ability of the Licensee and NRC Staff to evaluate certain information.
It is important, not only to Intervenors' but also to the Board, that any past errors be exposed.
The only way that information regarding this performance can be obtained is through the discovery process.
Motion, p.
2.
Intervenors' argument is without merit.
CFSP's Con-tention 3 / alleges that:
Plant Staff review of proposed modification is inadequate to assure no violations of Technical Specifications will occur.
It is important to emphasize that this contention is quite narrow in scope.
As explained to the Board at the
~*/
CFSP's Contention 4 alleges that:
"NRC Staff review of proposed modification is inadequate to assure no violation of Technical Specifications will occur."
Licensee is unable to discern why CFSP thinks its Contention 4, which alleges inadequacy with respect to the URC Staff's review of the proposed modification to the Control ~ Building en-titles it to discovery from Licensee on a totally unrelated subject.
1738 112 Prehearing Conference by Mr. Rosolie, CFSP's representative, that contention deals only with the scope and adequacy of the PGE Plant Staff's review of Bechtel's work plans for the mcdification work.
(Tr. 3015-3016).
Such a limited contention cannot now be expanded to inclute consideration of matters not part of the modification work, such as the Licensee's inspections and reports under IE Bulletin 79-14.
Intervenors also argue that their Interrogatories are related to the subject matter at hand, since all three allegedly address the seismic qualification of safety-related equipment.
Motion, p.
2.
As we have explained above, however, Intervenors' discovery rights are limited to their admitted contentions.
In its October 17, 1979 " Order Regarding Staff's Motion For Reconsideration Of Consolidation of Intervenors, and Motions Directed To Intervenors' Responses to Discovery,"
the Board dismissed Intervenors' only contention (Consolidated Intervenors' Contention No. 3) which dealt with seismic qualification of safety-related equipment. /
Tht.s, Intervenors
' have no admitted contention relating to seisnic qualification of safety-related equipment and their argument is without merit.
Intervenors raise one more argument as to why their Interrogatories should be answered.
They claim that the Board's remarks at the prehearing conference (Tr. 3045)
_/
The Board, in its Order, explicitly ruled that Intervenors were thereafter " bound by the admitted contentions of CFSP Order, p.
4.
1738 113
. concerning the right to file amended or new contentions somehow entitles them to discovery on the subjects covered in Interrogatories 1-3 because
[T]he matters raised [in those Interrogatories]
have all come to light recently and inter-venors should have a opportunity to flush out all information about them.
Motion, p.
2.
The fact that, under some limited circumstances, amended or new contentions may be filed in NRC proceedings does not entitle Intervonors to discovery on matters not relevant to admitted contentions.
In short, Intervenors cannot be permitted discovery on matters not relevant to admitted contentions on the theory that they might somehow be able to develop additional contentions at some future time.
Interrogatory 4 In their Interrogatory 4, Intervenors seek information with respect to the recent arrest for drug-related offenses of some guards employed at the Trojan site.
Licensee objected to that Interrogatory on the grounds that none of Intervenors' contentions related to that information.
Intervenors argue that their Contention 18 (uhich dealt with security matters) was " stipulated to" at the prehearing conference, and that Licensee has already provided information to the NPC Staff with respect to that contention.
Intervenors also allude to their Dececher 8, 1979, " Motion To Reopen Phase I Eviden-tiary Hearings, Revoke Interim Operating License, And Compel Full Disclosure" and claim that neither Licensee nor 1738 114
4.
Intervenors Staff is providing information on the matter.
contend that, in light of that, the only means left is discovery.
Motion, p.
3.
Presumably they mean that the only means left information on this matter is through discovery.
for them to get Under the stipulation entered into by Intervenors at the
- Instead, Prehearing Conference, Contention 18 was not admitted.
it was agreed that the Staff would submit a report which would address any specific questions raised by Intervenors without compromising security details.
(Tr. 3090-3092).
Intervenors apparently have decided to ignore the stipulation for, to the best of Licensee's knowledge, they have not addressed to the arrest incident questions to the Staff with respect and have not asked that the answers be incorporated into a supplement to the Staff's report.
since Interrogatory 4 does not relate to In any event, an admitted contention in this proceeding, Intervenors' notion to compel a response thereto should be denied.
Motion For Protective Order Licensee also moves the Board, pursuant to 10 CFR 32.740 (c),
to Intervenors' December for a protective order with respect
" Motion To Compel Response By Licensee To Intervenors' 13, 1979 Interrogatories Dated November 14, 1979 which would relieve Licensee from responding to Intervenors' Interrogatories 1-4 the information sought by such interrogatories on the grounds that 1738 115
. is beyond the scope of Intervenors' admitted contentions in this proceeding and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Respectfully submitted, RONALD W.
JOHI! sot!, ESQ.
Corporate Attorney Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W.
Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204 MAURICE AXELPAD, ESQ.
ALBERT V.
CARR. JR.
ESQ.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, I!W Uashington, D.
C.
20036 j
f A
By
, s Dated at Washington, D.
C.
this 21st day of December, 1979.
1738 116
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-344 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
et al.
)
(Control Building Proceeding)
)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of ' LICENSEE'S RESPONSE IF OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' ' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE SY LICENSEE TO INTERVENORS '
INTERROGATORIES DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1979;' LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR PROTEC-TIVE ORDER" in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 21st day of December, 1979:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Columbia County Courthouse Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Law Library, Circuit Court Room U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission St. Helens, OR 97051 Washington, D.C.
20555 Joseph R.
Gray, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A.
McCollom, Dean Counsel for NRC Staff Division of Engineering, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Architecture & Technology Washington, D.C.
20555 Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 97074 Ms. Nina Bell 728 S.E.
26th Street Dr. Hugh C.
Paxton Portland, OR 97214 1229 - 41st Street Los Alamos, NM 87544 Mr. Eugene Rosolie Coalition for Safe Power Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 215 S.E.
9th Avenue Panel Portland, OR 97214 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. David B.
McCoy 348 Hussey Lane Docketing and Service Section Grants Pass, OR 97526 Office of the Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John A.
Kullberg Washington, D.C.
20555 Route One (Original & 20 copies)
Box 2500 Sauvie Island, OR 97231 1738 117
Ms.
C. Gail Parson Frank W.
Ostrander, Jr.,
Esq.
P.O.
Box 2992 Assistant Attorney General Kodiak, AK 99615 State of Oregon Department of Justice Atomic Safety and Licensing 500 Pacific Building Appeal Board 520 S.W.
Yamhill U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portland, OR 97204 Washington, D.C.
20555 William W.
Kinsey, Esq.
Ronald W.
Johnson, Esq.
Bonneville Power Administration Corporate Attorney P.O.
Box 3621 Portland General Electric Company Portland, OR 97208 121 S.W.
Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204
'/l/\\
/
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Aven 57 Washington, D.
C.
20 6
(202-862-8400)
Dated:
December 21, 1979 1738 118