ML19260B972
| ML19260B972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1979 |
| From: | Hoefling R, Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912180048 | |
| Download: ML19260B972 (9) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 12/11/79 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY Docket No. 50-312 (SP)
DISTRICT
)
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
NRC STAFF REQUEST FOR A FINDING PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 6 2.720(h)(2)(ii) REGARDING CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND NRC STAFF RE00EST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER On November 15, 1979, the California Energy Commission (CEC) filed its First Set of Interrogatories with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to be answered by the NRC Staff. The interrogatories were filed pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.720(h)(ii) which permits the filing of such interrogatories with the presiding officer of a proceeding to permit a determination by the presiding officer that the answers to the interrogatories from the NRC Staff are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source.
Without awaiting a Board finding relative to CEC's First Set of Interroga-tories, the NRC Staff is serving contemporaniously with this pleading its M W 202 7912180 O
"NRC Staff Responses to California Energy Commission's First Set of Inter-rogatories to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission". With regard to certain of CEC's interrogatories, however, the Staff would object as set forth more fully below.
The rules of discovery in NRC proceedings applicable to all parties are set forth in 10 CFR 9 2.740. This section allows discovery regarding any matter not privileged as long as it is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding or will lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. The rules of discovery add additional requirements when discovery is directed against the NRC Staff.
These requirements are set forth in 10 CFR 9 2.720.
With regard to interrogatories directed to the Staff, 9 2.720(h)(2)(ii) requires a finding by the presiding officer that:
... answers to the interrogatories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and answers to interrogatories are not reason-ably obtainable from any other source...
Additionally, pursuant to 10 CFR 9 2.740(c)
Upon motion by a party or the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the presiding officer may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense...
It is in this context that NRC Staff objections to CEC's interrogatories must be viewed.
The Staff now sets out its objections to CEC's discovery requests seriatim.
Met 203
' Interrogatory 1 The Staff, in its response to this interrogatory, has identified a vast number of documents relative to the areas of interest to CEC. These documents of interest to CEC will be made available to CEC for inspection and copying at NRC Staff offices where they are held at either Bethesda, Maryland or Walnut Creek, California.
Summaries and conclusions of these documents have not been provided and the Staff objects to providing this infomation as the burden of deriving or ascertaining this infomation is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, and so it is a sufficient answer to such interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford the party serving the interrogatory a reasonable opportunity to examine and make copies of such records.
See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 33(c);
4A Moore's Federal Practice 133.20, at 33-103 to 33-105 n.12 (2d. ed.1978).E I
There are additional documents in the NRC Staff's possession which relate to the subject areas identified by CEC. These would consist of the personal files of individuals who have assisted in the preparation of the documents which have been identified.
In the Staff's view, identification of all these documents is unduly burdensome. The NRC Staff would cooperate with CEC in detemining which additional documents would be of interest to CEC and would make records so identified available for inspection and copying at the NRC offices where they are held. Likewise, in the Staff's view, it is unduly burdensome for the Staff to identify all persons who have or are 1/
In the Staff's view, the provision of copies satisfies all CEC inquiries calling for summaries, conclusions, descriptions and identifications in this and the remaining CEC interrogatories.
J406 204
continuing to participate in these analyses as was requested by this inter-rogatory. The majority of this infomation would be available from the documents identified in the Staff's response. Again, the NRC Staff would cooperate with CEC to develop further specification in this area.E Interroaatory 2 Tne NRC Staff has not described each change to the operating procedures to the Rancho Seco facility that have been instituted as a result of the Three Mile Island accident and objects to doing so.
Rather, the Staff has iden-tified each procedure of which it is aware that has been changed as a result of the Three Mile Island accident.
In its response to Interrogatory 3, the NRC Staff has provided a brief description of the reason for the change.
However, the specific change can be detemined by CEC by comparison of the procedures identified as they existed prior to the Three Mile Island inci-dent and as they now exist in the revised state. Copies of all the proce-dures involved are not in the possession of the Staff but are reasonably available from another source, namely the licensee. Thus, it is sufficient answer to this interrogatory to point CEC to those records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained by them. The Staff also objects to the request to identify all documents relating to the changes. The request is burdensome in that a number of personal files contain the types of documents 2_/
Our responses to CEC's interrogatories do not, of course, reflect information which may or may not be in the possession of the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group. This is true not only for interrogatory 1, but wherever we have been requested to identify documents prepared by or in the possession of the NRC Staff.
M06 205
. requested. The Staff will make these documents available to CEC for inspec-tion and copying at the NRC offices where they are held.
Finally, the Staff objects to the request to describe all potential changes considered but rejected. A number of potential changes were offered by the licensee but were rejected by the Staff as not adequate.
Infomation regarding these changes is reasonably available from the licensee. The Staff response does address whether there were any changes formally proposed by the Staff to the Licensee which were not adopted by the Licensee.
The Staff does not have any records of potential changes that were discussed among members of the Staff, but never adopted as fonnal Staff positions, and has, therefore, not attempted to provide a listing of such changes.
Interrogatory 5 The Staff views this interrogatory as overly broad. The NRC Staff response discusses only those analyses which have been performed documenting the acceptability of natural circulation for core cooling of B&W facilities and has provided copies of the appropriate studies and the Staff objects to providing information beyond this scope. The response makes no attempt to describe all analyses which have ever been perfonned in this area.
Interrogatory 7 The Staff has provided copies of the primary documents which relate to this area of inquiry. There exist, in addition, the personal files of the indi-viduals on the Staff who work in this area.
In the Staff's view, it is M06 206 unduly burdensome to identify all of these records and the Staff objects to this portion of the interrogatory. However, these files will be made avail-able for inspection and copying by CEC at the NRC offices where they are held.
Interrogatory 8 In the Staff's view, it is unduly burdensome for the Staff to identify all documents related to the subject of this interrogatory and the Staff objects.
Primary documents in this area have been provided as enclosures to the response. There exist, in addition, the personal files of individuals who have worked in this area. These files will be made available to CEC for inspection and copying at the NRC offices where they are held.
Interrogatory 11 The Staff has provided copies of those studies which have been performed by or for the NRC Staff in the subject area of this interrogatory.
It should be noted that studies in this area have been performed by CEC and its con-tractors and are, therefore, already in CEC's possession. However, CEC is welcome to visit the NRC Staff's library to determine whether any other documents are in the Staff's possession, copies of which CEC does not have.
Any such documents would be available for inspection.
Interrogatory 14 The NRC Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the inter-rogatory is overly broad and on the ground of relevance. The issues in this WHP6 207
. proceeding as defined by the Commission's Order of June 21, 1979, involve the adequacy of the actions required by the Commission's Order of May 7, 1979. The issues are limited to the ability of the Rancho Seco facility to respond safely to feedwater transients. This CEC interrogatory is vague, overly broad and seeks discovery on an issue far beyond the scope of this proceeding as set by the Commission in its Order of June 21, 1979.
Staff Request for Findings Under 10 CFR 6 2.720(h)(2)(ii) and Staff Request for a Protective Order For the reasons set forth above, the Staff requests that the Licensing Board find, under 10 CFR Q 2.720(h)(2)(ii), that the responses to certain above-identified interrogatories of CEC are not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding and/or are reasonably obtainable from other sources. The Staff further requests that the Board issue a protective order, under 55 2.720(h)(2)(iv) and 2.740(c), that, as to the interrogatories identified above, discovery either not be had or be had only on the tenns and conditions (including a designation of the place) suggested by the Staff.
Respectfully submitted, Q' N. k~i b Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff Steph H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this lith day of December, 1979 MrM 208
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
~
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY Docket No. 50-312 DISTRICT Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that cop 1es of "NRC STAFF REQUEST FOR A FINDING PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 62.720(h)(2)(ii) REGARDING CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE NUCLEAR REGULAT0lY COMMISSION AND NRC STAFF REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER,"
In the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this lith day of December, 1979:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Gary Hursh, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 520 Capitol Mall Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 700 Sacramento, California 95814
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Richard D. Castro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission 2231 K Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Sacramento, California 95816
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon James S. Reed, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Michael H. Remy, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reed, Samuel & Remy Washington, D.C.
20555 717 K Street, Suite 405 Sacramento, Califorriia 95814 David S. Kaplan, Esq.
General Counsel Christopher Ellison, Esq.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Dian Grueneich, Esq.
P. O.
Box 15830 California Energy Commission Sacramento, California 95813 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 W M 209
.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Michael R. Eaton Board Panel Energy Issues Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sierra Club Legislative Office Washington, D.C.
20555 1107 9 Street, Room 1020 Sacramento, C-3.lifornia 95814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C.
20555 1800 M Street, N.W.
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Hill, Christopher and Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
M,4 h, Washington, D.C.
20036 Stephgri H. L'ewis i
Wret 210