ML19225C842

Response Submitted by Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers to NRC 790521 & Util 790525 Discovery Requests. Each & Every Question Is Not Applicable to Intervenors. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19225C842
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	06/16/1979
From:	Lemanowicz I CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS
To:
Shared Package
ML19225C840	List: ML19225C842
References
NUDOCS 7908020578
Download: ML19225C842 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ . ._ _

UNITED STATES OF A:'IFICA NUCLE AR REGULATORT CO:011SSION

, .. d C In the Matter of g 3 si ,v, Docket Noc. 50-387 PIPISYLVANIA POWER AND LI'5ST"dO.

ALLEGHE'iY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, D;C. 50-388

, ,. c - clLO

( Be rwic 16.aic Powe r Plan t i .

(Susquehanna Units 1 and u .

CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS' REPLIES TO THE INTERECGATCRIES OF THE NRC STAFF A'iD THE APPLICANTS AND OT:-3:R 'GTTERS

,. PROIDGUE

• 9, The people livin6 in the vicinity of Berwick, Pennsylvania were informed by government officials to be prepared ' i sonehow, impossibly, accommodate tens of thousands of"fleein6 ref: des from the Harrisbur6 area, if a melt-down and steam explosion at Three-Mile-Island necessitated total mass exacuation. Berwick is only about 65 air miles from Three-Mile-Island, in a no rtheast direction. -

The people of Berwick also live very near to a cons *,ruction site where the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company is proceeding with plans to brin 6 the atomic nightmare of Three-Mile-Island to their doorstep.

There is, t.erefore, a 6 rowing als rm and concern over the threat to public health and safety that will be visited upon the citizenry by the Berwick atomic power plant. For Government representativas to ignore this deep concern would be a 6 rave mistake. The problems of TMI wi.11 not So away. It can never be busP. ass as usu:_ a6ain for the atomic industry anywhere in the Susquehanna Valley.

~

gg D J gf nL; b

')

I i

~

2 ,. -

i Accord 196 to correspondence from the counsel Zor the NEC, dated May 21, 1979, and the counsel for the App 11cante, dated May 25, 1979, the Citizens Assinat Muclear Dan 6ers (Citizens) Berwick, Pa. , are _

requested to reply to approximately two-hundred iterized interrogatory l

que stions by June 29, 1979. _

The initial renponse by the Citizens is as follows: The Citizens will presently submit a motion before the U.S. Atomic 3afety and Licensin6 3 card raquesting a ru11n6 in the form of an Order announcing a Guapension of the pre 1131 nary timetable for discovery requests and interrogatories, etc. , decreed in the Eoard's Special Prehearin6 Conference Order, dated March 6,1979.

.The reason for (his motion is twofold. The first reason is associated with the announcement issued on/or about May 21, 1979, by the NRC in Washin6 ton, D.C. declarin6 a 90 day suspenston (and possibly a longer duration) on certain licensing proceedings because of the Three-Mile-Island (TMI) disa ster. The Citizenu presume that such rulings by the NRC supersede the orders of the several licensing panels functioning nationwide, including the proceedings at Docket Nos. 50-367 and 50-388, the Berwick applications. Therefore, the Citizena believe tbat' the interrogatories presented by the NRC staff and the Applicants are, at the very least, pre =ature and inappropriate at this time because of the NRC licensing moratorium whic6 is now in force.

The second reason deals with the perplexities of the genersi and specific interrogate rica relative to the admitted contentions. The Citizens propose that the NRC and the 4pplicants retract their interro6atoriaa because tboy are not aanlicable in cost instances, b

423 3fE5

. ,. e a a ,

m.

we *= -

~

3 and/or are misdirected to the interveners in general, as stated in their first round discovery req hat?. The Citizens also re6ard the choice of, most questions directed at the interveners as arbitrary and out of order due to their misdirection. ,

The NRC should be directing their penetratin6 questions about the Berwick atomic power plar', at the Applicants. 'fhe burden of proof is on the Applicants to show that the Earwick facility will not become .

another Three-IIlle-Island disaster. The interveners are not on trial, we represent the American people, out tha capability of the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company is; and the credibility of the NRC is' It is only fair to announce at this point that the Citizens hereby request from the President's Special Commission on TMI, the Governor's Commission on TMI, the, appropriate se. lect and standing committees of Con 6ress (plus the GAO , and the General Assembly of Pennsylvania studyin6 TMI and NRC -licensin6 in General, that each' Sroup subcoena the entire record of NRC Docket Mos. '55-387 and 55-388 from at least August, 1978 (when the interventi ns began) c. sward as material evidence in their proceedings. The serious mistakes of the TMI licenses are occurring all over again with the Berwick operatin6 license case.

The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers categorically object te each and every interrogatory question submitted by the NRC, and categc rically object to each and every interrogatory question submitted by the Applicoats. The Citizens' objections are as follows:

In most instances tne questions are not applicable to the intervenars.

The Licensing Roard Panel, or their agents, authored or edited, almost beyond recognition, =ost of the so-called admitted contentions by using some esoteric methodology. The Citizens did not concur with the Boa rd's revisionist contentions. Nor, are the Citi:ne s williu6 to be cauSht in some legalistic entrapment inherent in the apparent riEged.[fb) interrogatories. ' 4)) Q

. - - - - L  ;: -- ---

The interveners did not have time to appeal there dubious, yet, apparently official revised contentions, or the contentions rejected outr16ht, because the prescribed time limit--a mere five days-- had passed by the ti=e the P5 paSe Order of March 6,1979, was shipped through the mails and received by the interveners. There simply wasn't time to appeal, yet the Board allowed this to transpire! This clearly violated legal- standards of fairness. , The Citizens further object to the interrogatories because some of them are unanswerable until the list of documents the Citizens recently requested f rom the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Applicants arrive and are carefully analyzed. We are settin6 no arbritrary time limit on our requests. We are e.11owing a reasonable amount of time because the interveners are more concerned about getting at the true f acts in determinin6 1f the Berwick a-tomic plant can be operated in a safer manne r than TMI. . . irregardless of con struction timetables, which seems to be an s ' - scien with some other parties. Also, the Citizens will have_ no difficulty presenting nationally renowned exp irt witnesses at the public hearin6s next year, but we are only beginnin6 to round them up and, of course, cannot submit advance testimony that has not yet been prepared from experts that hav6 not yet been selected, who must first examine and study the documents which the intervoners have recuested but have not yet received from the other parties. Many of the submitted interrogatories are possi 7 intended to cloud the rea? safety and envirnomental issues over the Berwick plant? They are ce- 'nly intimidating and an afront. The absurdity of many of the questions is that the questioners have the cnswers already! The Boa rd has previously upheld the NEC in denyin6 the interveners the very government documents that contain much of the information requested. This is de finitely " Catch 22". . {f 423 3503

     -                                          5 The Board itself, for six months now, has obstructed cheir own proceedings by denying all intervenin6 parties individual sets of the documentation f rom the NRC Accession List.              Four conths have passed and the interveners patiently await from the Board certified sets of the transcripts from the Special Pre-Hearin6 Conference.                        The interveners cannot proceed with their case without this vital information.                        Denial ,

of this public record, which is in the possession of the NRC and the Applicants, is prejudicial and discriminatp-lI. Italsoviola}tes due process of law! If this pattern continues, concerned and aggrieved citizens, acting in the qublic interest, may have no other course of action but to file a civil action in Federal District Court seekin6 an injunctiou in the Berwick 11censin6 case; or to file charSes with the U.S. Justice Department alle61n6 collusion to commit unlawful acts. In order that the TMI Commissions, the Con 6ress and the ' General Assembly understand just how the Constitutional Rights of American citizens are beir6 trampled upon by the NRC, the Citizens will cite the fo11owin6 axamples. On Janua ry 29,1979, at W11kis-Barre, Pa. , a NRC appointe? " Atomic Safety and Licensin6 Boa rd Panel", having three members, conducted a "Special Pre-Hearin6 Conference" on the Berwick atomic power plant operatin6 license applications. The Four inte rvenin6 groups pre sent, without any forewarning, were each handed large sets of documents, about rive minutes before the hearin6 be6an, by the NRC staff and by the Applicants. These documents contained detailed objections to each and every contention in the petitions of the interveners, which they presented to all parties weeks in savance. The re are hundreds of citations of law permeating these documents, which were referred to extensively by the NRC staff, the Applicants and the Board durin6 {)- 423 3R

                                                                                    +         .-,en-eeew --      g-..m amma+-        ewa- -

Ae geme - -

g , the proceedin63, and which weichted heavily in the deliberations. Five minutos notice! This is the type of h16h-handed and heavy-handed treat =ont A=crican citizens 60t in the NRC kan63roo court! Durin6 the closin6 mornin6 session on January 31, 1979, the Board, ospecially, repeatedly objected to the Citizens explainin6 from their petition aattars related to certain health and safety issues. They , obviously did not want certain gtateacnts recorded by the petitioners. The record will show this, if that testicony has not been abridged or expun6ed. Since copies of the hearing transcript have been withheld, the Citizens cannot be sure precisely what testimony has been recorded. This has happened, not in the Soviet Union, but r16h t here in the United States! The Board rushed throu6h the final session, cuttin6-off so=e of the most important testidony, which was never admitted, alle6edly so they could catch an earlier fl16ht back to Washin6 ton, D.C. By any reasonable standards, the Pre-Hearin6 Conference was crocedurally defective, and should be conducted over again, .this time the proper Constitutional way. So. . .is it any wonder that atomic power plants like TMI get operatin6 licenses f rom the NRC with such cursory type reviewa. The Citizens conclude by stating that an independent re-evaluation of the entire Ber.vick application is called for, perhaps in the form of a lo61slativ e inv e sti6ation. O

                                                                  ,;[-
                                                   )                         l. Q c' #       c) f ., ._

PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT CO. Docket Nos. 50-337 :~ .OS#

                                                                                                       ~2 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.        {
                                                   ,                  50-388  Y              Cd ? ,C/

(Susquehanna Stean, Electric Station,

                                                   )
                                                   )

L%^26 [$;: s/[ ' Units 1 and 2) ) [yf v NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS TO RESPOND TO THE STAFF'S DISCOVERY REGUESTS Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(f), the NRC Staff (Scaff) moves this Atomic S_fety and Licensing Board (Board) for an Order compelling Intervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND), to respond to the Staff's discovery requests on the grounds that: (1) Staff's interrogatories and requests for production of documents are within the scope of pennissible discovery as defined by 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1). (2) CAND has not sought or~ received a protective order under 10 CFP 2.740(c). (3) CAND has neither answered nor objected to any of the Staff's interrogatories as required by 10 CFR 2.740b(b). (4) CAND has neither responded to the Staff's requests for production of documents nor objected to the requests as required by 10 CFR 2.741(d). (5) CAND's reply dated June 16, 19.79 constitutes a failure to answer and respond under 10 CFR 2.740(f). By its Special Prehearing Conference Order dated March 6,1979 this Board ad-mitted CAND as a Intervenor, ruled on contentions and established a schedule for discovery. The Board designated May 25,-1979 as the last day for submission 473 .7 o5

                                                                             ? 7o7260073 1, p I                     7908020            I

2-of first-round discovery requests and specified June 29,19'9 as the date by which responses to first-round discovery requests must be filed. The Staff's discovery requests of CAND were timely served by mail on hy 21, 1979. The Staff's discovery reauests relate to specific contentions which were admitted by the Board. The Staff requested information concerning the factual bases for CAND's contentions, the identities and addresses of persons to be called as expert witnesses and the identification and production of documents to be used by CAND in examining and cross-examining witnesses. '/ The Comissioil's rules regarding discovery state in certinent part: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter , not privileged, which is relevant to the subject - matter involved in the proceeding, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible thinas and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. In a proceeding on an application for

                          . . an operating license for a . . . utilization
                    *t cility, discovery . . . shall relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identi-fied by the Commission or the presiding officer in the prehearina order entered at the conclusion of t'ut prehearing conference. *** It is not ground for objection that the infornation sought will be inadmissi!;1e at tne hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead tc the discovery of admissible evidence. (10 CFR 52.740(b)(1)).

3 A copy of the Staff's discovery requests of CAND is attached. h 47.3 N b

                                     ,4

The Staff's discovery requests fall squarely within the bounds of that allowed by 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1). Disclosure of the types of infomation and documents requested is the precise purpose of the applicable Conmission rules and is necessary to enable complete trial preparation by the Staff in this proceeding.S On June 20, 1979 the Staff received e document entitled " Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers' Replies to the Interrogatories of the NRC Staff and the Applicants and Other Matters."3 CAND states at page 3 of the document that it " categorically object [s] to each and every interrogatory question submitted by the NRC . . ."(It does not answer any of the interrogatories nor does it provide valid reasons why any of them is objectionable. Although CAND makes an attack on the Staff, the Applicant and the Board it does not deal with the merits of the Staff's discovery requests. Under 10 CFR 2,740(f) such "an evasive or incomplete answer or response shall be treated as a failure to answer or respcad." CAND's failure to respond is frustrating the orderly progress of this proceeding. Accordingly, th5 Staff urges this Board to grant its motion to compel, and to order CAND to respond fully and properly to the Staff's discovery requests of 3 ee:S Boston Edison Comoany, et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generat.ing Station, Unit 2), LBP-75 .10, 1 NRC 579 (1975). See aenerally: Commonwealth Edison Comoany (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 460-3 (1974). 3 A copy is attached for the convenience of the Board. 423 K'd

                                      .G

+ .-

May 21, 1979. Further, the Staff requests that the Board dismiss CAND from these proceedings if it fails fully to comply with the Board's Order. Respectfully submitted, A i v - James M. Cutchin, IV Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of June,1979 2%* e 423 ~@$ O 8 F

06/28/79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) PENNSYLVANIn POWER AND LIGHT CO. Docket Nos. 50-387 ALLEGHENY 2LECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) 50-388

                                             )

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, ) Units 1 and 2) ) PROPOSED FORM 0F ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY OF CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS The NRC 5taff, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(f), has moved this Board for an Order compelling Intervenor Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND), to respond to disccvery requests ade by the Staff. The Board has reviewed the relevant documents and finds as folluws: (1) The Staff's discovery requests of CAND were served on May 21, 1979 in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice and in comoliance with the schedule for discovery establi hed by this Board in it: Special Prehearing Conference Order dated March 6, 1979. (2) The Staff's discovery requests are within the bounds of that permitted under 10 CFR 2.740 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. (3) CAND has neither responded to nor objected to the Staff's interrogc+ndes as required by 10 CFR 2.740b(b) or the Staff's requests for production of documents as required by 10 CFR 2.741(d). (4) CAND has neither sought nor been granted a protective order under 10 CFR 2.740(c). (5) The reply filed by CAND on June 16, 1979 constitutes a failure

• to answer or respond under 10 CFR 2.740(f).

                                                                 ~

m& .

Accordingly, the Board directs CAND to respond fully and property to the Staff's discovery requests of May 21, 1979 no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order subject to dismissal from this proceeding if it fails to comply with this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC TY AN9 LICENSING BOARD Respectfully submitted, l'. *

                                                               --     =    .        q James M. Cutchin, IV Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of June,1979
                                     .=

O 4

                                  .3
                                                                                                      -}}