ML19225B235

Request on Behalf of Util That ASLB Compel Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Respond to Util 790525 Interrogatories & Document Request.Intervenor 790616 Objections Are Unsupportable.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19225B235
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	06/27/1979
From:	Silberg J, Yuspeh A SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:
References
NUDOCS 7907240335
Download: ML19225B235 (7)

Text

.

., C ^

W PUBLIC DOCUMEXT ROOM i June 27, 1979 3

t,-

. ., _ _j

'fg

- s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

.- , A -

\: NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

PENNSYLVANIA PCWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-387 and ) 50-388 ALLEGEENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

)

(Sasquahanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INTERVENOR CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(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' First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers" and " Applicants' First Request to Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers for the Production of Documents,"

both dated May 25, 1979, within ten (10) days frcm the date of issuance of suc5 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, UU3 JU) q907 h b O

1979, CAND served upon Applicants a document titled

" Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers' Replies to the Inter-rogatories of the NRC Staff and the Applicants and other Matters" ( "CAND Replie s ") . In this document, CAND ob-jects "to each and every interrogatory question" in the Applicants' May 25 filing.

CAND sets forth several reasons for its blanket objection to Applicants' discovery request. First, CAND alleges that the Commission has declared "a 90 day sus-pension (and possibly a longer duration) en 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 Ccmmission has said nothing which could be interpretted as halting licensing proceedings under way before atomic safety and licensing boards.

Second, CAND asserts that Applicants ' disecvery 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 en Applicants, Applicants cannot seek dis-covery frem intervenors. This cbjecticn is contrary to the Cccmission's discovery regulations (10 CFR 552.740 - 2.741) and numercus NRC decisions. As stated in Offshore Pcwer Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants), L3P-75-67, 2 NRC 813, 816-817 (1975),

368 086

Status as a party affords certain rights, including the righ.t 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 frcm those other parties. This is a b'asic 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' discovery because of its apparent objection to the wording of the admitted contentions. CAND Replies, p. 3, As CAND recognizes, CAND Replies, p. 4, the Cc= mission's rules set a deadline for filing objections to the reframing of contentions in the Special Prehearing Conference Order. See 10 C.F.R. 52.751a(d).

Although CAND states that it did not have time to appeal be-fore this deadline, it neither sought additional time frcm 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' discovery.

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' discovery 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

, n

)(OC nnj vC

-4_

based its contentions. If it does not have the information Irequested, 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 cirply 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' discovery because "the questioners have the answers already". CAND Replies, p. 4.

Applicants' discovery 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 which issues need to be addressed at the evidentiary hearings. CAND's answers will help define the areas of dispute between the 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.

363 033  : .. >

For these reasons, Applicants respectfully submit that CAND's objections are not supportable and that the Board should direct CAND to promptly answer Applicants' interroga-tories (either by providing the information requested or stating that it has no such information) and make available the documents requested.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TRCWBRIDGE By I

tj

\ dL, (/

Jayj 15. Elilberg Ala d R. I Yuspeh 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 (202)331-4100 Dated: June 27, 1979 368 039

June 27, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Beard In the Matter of )

)

PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-387 and ) 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

)

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Motion 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.

AS /

Ja 11 berg E.

}

Dated: June 27, 1979 368 090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOALD In the Matter of )

)

PENNSYLVANIA POWFR & LIGHT CCMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-387 and ) 50-388 ALLGEHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Secretary of the Commission Decketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Cccmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Charles Bechhcefer, Esquire Chairman Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Atcmic Safety and Licensing Co-Director Beard Panel Environmental Coalition on U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Nuclear Power Washington, D. C. 20555 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Susquehanna Environ = ental Advocates Board Fanel c/o Gerald Schultz, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn 500 South River Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairman Atcmic Safety and Licensing The Citizens Against Nuclear Danger Board Panel Post Office Box 377 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission R. D. 1 Washington, D. C. 20555 Berwick, Pennsylvania 13603 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Colleen Marsh Board Panel 558 A, R. D. 44 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cccmission Mt. Top, Pennsylvania 19707 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Thcmas M. Gerusky, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bureau of Radiation Protection Board Panel Deparrment of Environmental Rescurces U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cetnission Ccamenwealth of Pennsylvania Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 2063 Barrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Jaries M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cccmission Washington, D. C. 20535 ,,

t s v}