ML19260C389
| ML19260C389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1979 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912260275 | |
| Download: ML19260C389 (9) | |
Text
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 12/17/79 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT )
Docket No. 50-312
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating
)
Station)
)
NRC STAFF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AGAINST INTERVEN0RS HURSH-CASTRO BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION On November 9,1979, the NRC Staff filed its "First Set of... Interrogatories to Gary Hursh and Richard Castro." Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740b(b), re-sponses would have been due on November 28, 1979, that date was, however, extended to December 5,1979 by virtue of agreement between Mr. Hursh and counsel for the Staff.
On December 5, 1979, Mr. Hursh served Staff counsel "in hand" with a copy of " Answers to Gary Hursh and Richard Castro to First Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories." Under 10 C.F.R. 52.740(f) the request mg party may move the Licensing Board, within 10 days after the date of the response, for an order compelling response to its interrogatories. The Staff hereby moves the Licensing Board for an order compelling Intervenors Hursh-Castro to respond to its first set of interrogatories, as specified below.
1617 291 7912260 2~7f
. ARGUMENT Intervenors have filed a blanket objection with respect to all except one of the Staff's interrogatories. Their objection is based on the assertion that it is not their responsibility or obligation to provide the informa-tion requested.
In Intervenors' view, once they have stated their areas of concern, "it is now incumbent upon the Licensee and NRC Staff to demonstrate convincingly that each and every contention is without merit and that Rancho Seco can operate safely." (p. 1.)
Intervenors have confused two distinct concepts: burden of proof and obliga-tion to respond to discovery. The Licensing Board has already ruled that the burden of proof in this proceeding is upon the Licensee.
Prehearing Conference Order, August 3, 1979, at 2.
Intervenors have, however, raised and had admitted in this proceeding certain contentions.
Order Ruling on Scope and Contentions, October 5,1979, at 19-24. Under the Commission's rules of practice (10 C.F.R. 552.740-2.744), discovery may be had with respect to "any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter in-volved in the. proceeding." (92.740(b)(1).) Discovery shall be limited to "those matters in controversy which have been identified by the Commission or the presiding officer in the prehearing order entered at the conclusion of [the 62.751a] prehearing conference."
Id. The Staff's interrogatories are directly related to the contentions of Intervenors and Intervenors do not argue that they are not relevant to their contentions and to the subject matter of this proceeding.
In filing its interrogatories, Staff simply seeks 1617 292
. a better understanding of Intervenors' contentions and of the bases for these contentions. The fullest possible disclosure of the position of Intervenors Hursh-Castro is necessary both from the point of view of adjudicatory effi-ciency (in having disclosure prior to rather than during the hearing) and the ability of the Staff to prepare an effective case.
Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Zion), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 460-63 (1974) and cases there cited.
Inter-venors have raised no point as support for their general objection other than the asserted lack of burden on them to respond and the Board should find that this general objection is entirely without merit.
Without waiving their general objection, Intervenors have provided certain limited information in response to the interrogatories.
For the reasons developed below, the Staff believes the responses to many of the interro-gatories to be, in the language of the Commission's regulations, " evasive or incomplete" and, therefore, amenable to a motion to compel.'
(10 C.F.P, 52.740(b).)
In their response to Interrogatories 2 through 7, Intervenors rely solely upon the identification by the Commission in its August 9,1979 " Order and Notice of Hearing" in the TMI-1 proceeding of features of B&W reactors that contribute to their sensitivity to certain off-normal transient conditions originating in the secondary system. These same features were identified by the Commission in its May 7, 1979 order in this proceeding (at 1-2), in its description of the concerns which led it to issue its order.
In desig-nating the issues of hearing, the Conmission formulated the first issue as Whether the actions required by subparagraphs (a) through (e) of Section IV of the Order are necessary and sufficient 1617 293
to provide reasonable assurance that the facility will respond safely to feedwater transients, pending comple-tion of the long-term modifications set forth in Sec-tion II.
Order, June 21, 1979, at 2.
By simply referring back to the Commission's identification of the design features contributing to the sensitivity, In-tervenors have failed to address this issue.
By its interrogatories, the Staff sought to discover the safety problem (s) which Intervenors perceived as a result of these features. Where applicable, the Staff posed these interrogatories in light of the actions taken pursuant to the Commission's order. The interrogatories related to the ability of the facility to respond safely to feedwater transients and/or turbine trips in light of:
steam generator design (Interrogatory 2);
the installation of a hard-wired control-grade reactor trip that would be actuated on loss of main feedwater and/or tur-bine trip (Interrogatory 3);
the implementation.cf procedures to provide for control of steam generator level by use of safety grade auxiliary feed-water system bypass valves in the event that ICS steam generator levels fails (Interrogatory 4);
changes to decrease the reactor high pressure trip. point and increase the pressurizer pilot-operated relief valve setting and implementation of operating instructions to define operator action for potential small breaks (Interrogatory 5);
and the driving head for natural circulation (Interrogatory 6).
Intervenors' answers to Interrogatories 3, 4, and 5 fail to address in any way the sufficiency of the actions taken by the Licensee pursuant to the Commission's order.--1/
The actions taken pursuant to the Commission's order 1/ Intervenors' statement in its response to Interrogatory 2 that "/T/n addition, there is the question as to whether the actions taken by the Licensee, as reflected in its letter of April 27, 1979, are sufficient and adequate for the safe operation of Rancho Seco"is merely a rephrasing of the Commission's Issues 1 and 3.
June 21, 1979 order, at 2.
1617 294 also recognized the small volume of secondary coolant in the steam ganerators (Interrogatory 2) and the low steam generator elevation relative to the reactor vessel (Interrogatory 6). Steps which the Licensee was required to take to assure safe operation of the facility in light of these design characteristics are set forth in the Staff's " Evaluation of Licensee's Responses to IE Bulle-tins79-05A and 79-05B," sent to the Board and parties under a covering letter of November 23, 1979. The Staff's interrogatories focused on whether the Inter-venors contend that the facility is now unsafe because of these design features.
Intervenors have failed to address this question.
The Staff also sought responses on the sufficiency of actions taken pursuant to the Commission's order in the following interrogatories:
Interrogatory 7 dealing with the upgrade of the timeliness and reliability of delivery from the Auxiliary Feedwater System; Interrogatory 8 dealing with the implementation of operating procedures for initiating and controlling auxiliary feed-water independent of the Integrated Control System; Interrogatory 9 dealing with the installation of the hard-wired control-grade reactor trip; and Interrogatory 10 dealing with B&W's analyses for potential small breaks and development and implementation of instruc-tions to define appropriate operator action.
Intervenors supplied the same response with respect to Interrogatories 7 through 10,--2/namely that it is an item where modifications have been required in light of the accident at THI-2 and questions still remain as to the sufficiency and adequacy of such modifications.
See TMI-1 Order.
2/ Intervenors identify a typographical error in Interrogatory 9 and raise an objection based on it, but have correctly understood what word was meant and answered on that basis.
1617 295 For the same reasons noted above with respect to Interrogatories 2 through 6, Intervenors' responses are deficient in that they fail to address the question of whether the actions taken pursuant to the Conmission's order are sufficient.
Intervenors have done nothing more than assert, without any supporting reasons, that " questions still remain as to the sufficiency and adequacy" of the modifications made pursuant to the Commission's order.
In several other instances, Intervenors have simply failed to respond to parts of interrogatories. No response has been provided to:
the part of Interrogatory 9 asking how Contentions 9 and 3 differ; Interrogatory 17.B; Interrogatory 19.B; Interrogatory 20.A, insofar as it asks for an identification of specific job positions as to which the incumbents have not been adequately tested and evaluated; Interrogatory 20.C; and Interrogatory 20.D.
Finally, Intervenors have objected to Interrogatories 1.C and 1.D on the ground that they are not interrogatories. The basis for the objection is not stated.
We are of the view that they are interrogatories and that responses should be provided.
1617 296
. CONCLUSION We respectfully move the Licensing Board for an order compelling Intervenors Hursh and Castro to respond to the interrogatories identified in this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
- . M Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of December,197^
1617 297
UNITEDSTATESOFAfNRICA 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 copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AGAINST INTERVENORS HURSH-CASTRO," 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 17th 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 Commission 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, California 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 1617 298
- 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, California 95814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Hill, Christopher and Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 SteV1en H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff 1617 299
...