ML19282A895
| ML19282A895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1979 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903080196 | |
| Download: ML19282A895 (7) | |
Text
'
W q,
g 6
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM
.,g73 y 4 N
t:NITED STAIES OF AMERICA egf,g #
g NUCLEAR REGUIMGRY CWMISSION b
In the Matter of
)
)
LTI'. P3ER CWPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-2623 Or etint to Materials License
)
StM-1773 fm Mme Euclear Station
)
C;rt Fuel '_'.:c sportation and Storage )
an i. 2. ira '. : clear Station)
)
ORDF CLNCERNDU DISCOVZRY CONIENTIONS AND SCEDULItE
~~
(February 23, 1910)
By ira Order Following Prehearing Conference dated November 2, 1 63, the Licaing Board granted petitions for leave to intervene filed by the Cerolina E r71rormental Study Group (CESG), Carolina Action and Saf Energy Alliance (SEA).E The State c,f South Carolina ms also granted the right to partit..pate as an interested State.
~
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRIX:) and the Davidson College Chapter of the North Carolina Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) wre denied leave to intervene by a Supplemal Order dated January 9, 1979. The Appeal Board, by its Order dated February 13, 1979, 1/-Ihe status of SEA is uncertain at this time. By a " Notice of With-draml frar. Accive Intervention" dated January 30, 1979, and signed by its previously authorized representative, Jereny Bloch, SEA pur-ported to withdru frcrn active intervention in this proceeding.
How.ver, by a " Notice of Reinstatermt to Active Interventicn dated February 15, 1979, and signed by a self-designated representative, Donald R. Belk, SEA p n:perted to request reinstatement as an active intervenor. There is no affidavit or other written verification of authorization to represent SEA, as was the case of the original designation of Jere f Lloch and proof of organizational acticn as verified by the afficxtit of Virginia Bullock, Recording Secretary.
P 7903 080 (9 b
. admitted NRDC as an intervenor as a matter of discretion. An appeal by PIPS of the denial of intervention is presently pending before the Appeal Board.
I.
Apparently s me discovery is under way at the initiative of sane of the parties to this proceeding. H&ever, no discovery schedule has been formally established. All parties are therefore requested to cannence discovery prmptly and conclude it expeditiously.2/
The Board will rule on contentiens and objections to interrogatories infra, as an aid to the parties in pursuing relevant discovery.
With respect to the contentions of NRDC, *e have requested sme refm=1ation of the issues and have set a conference with respective counsel on March 13, 1979. However, most of the issues and contentions raised by NRDC have been discussed to some extent by counsel at the special prehearing conference held en October 24,1978.1/ Acccrdingly, counsel are requested not to stand on ceremony as far as NRDC discovery is enneenad, and to cermmce prmptly all discovery reasonably possible prior to the conference with counsel and rulings on admissibility of contentions.
2_/ SEA will be treated as an active intervening paref for the time being pending verification of its status and the autbarization of its desig-nated representative, as described in Footnote 1, suora. However, its status unst be duly established within a reasonable time, as the Board will not permit continued participation as a party by yo-yo intervenors who ccce and go at their own pleasure or convenience.
1/ ee our Notice of Conference With Counsel, dated February 16, 1979.
S
. II.
On November 15, 1978, CESG served a set of interrogatories upcn the Staff. Without awaiting a Board order, the Staff on January 12,1979 filed responses to CESG interrogatories to which it did not object. On the same date, the Staff filed certain objections and request for a finding pursuant to 10 CFR $2.720(h)(2)(ii).
With regard to interrogatories to the Staff, t M t section provides that a party may file with the presiding officer written interrogatories to be answered by NRC personnel with knowledge of the facts. That section further provides:
"Upon a finding by the presiding officer that aners to the interrogatories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that raswers to the interrogatories are Int reasambly obtainable frcm any other source, tM presiding officer may reqture that the Staff answer tFa interrogatories."
CESG Interrogatories 44-46, 48-49, 51-54, 56-58, 64, 71, 75, 77 and 79-83 appear to be directed only to the licensee, Duke Power Carpany.
If they are directed to the Staff, they are subject to the objection that the infor=ation sought is reasonably cbtainable from anotbar source, contrary to the rule of practice quoted aboa. The Staff's objections to these interrogatories are sustained.
The Staff also objects to Interrogatory 84. That interrogatory refers to the positicn taken by the Interagency Review Group (IRG) with regard to future radioactive nuclear waste managenent. The Appeal
4 Board has held that in the evaluation of a proposed expansion of the capacity of a spent fuel pool, "neither the staff nor the Licensing Board need concern itself with.the matter of the ultimate disposal of the spent fuel....'b The same principle is applicable to this proceeding. The Staff's objections to the specified interrogatories are sustained, and they need not be answ red.
III.
The Applicant, on February 12, 1979, filed objections to certain interrogatories filed by CESG on December 18, 1978, together with a notion for a protective order pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.740(c). The challenged interrogatories, Nos. 44A, 45A, 46A and 64A, do not appear to have even subject-matter relevance for discovery purposes. In addition, Nos. 45A and 46A amount to unilateral determina-tions by CESG as to the responsiveness of prior responses to other interrogatories by the Applicant. The reemhsion's Rules of Practice rust be followed, whether the issues involve discovery or c ier procedural matters. 'Ihe objections are sustained, and the Applicant is not recuired to answer these interrogatories.
IV.
By cover letter dated October 27, 1978, counsel for the Applicant forwarded to the Licensing Board signed t,cipulations dated October 18, 1978.
S orthern States Power Carpany (Prairie Island Units 1 and 2), AIAB-455, N
7 NRC 41, 51 (1978).
. These stipninHms related to three contentions advanced by CESG, SEA and Carolina Action. In addition, Carolina Action set forth Contentions 4, 5 and 6, which wre not stipulated as contentions by the Applicant or the Staff.
The Board has reviewed Contentions 1, 2 and 3 as set forth in tbase stipulations, and approves them as achdssible contentions in this pro-ceeding.
Carolina Action Contention 4 states that the State of North Carolina does not have the ability to deal with an erargency that could result frcm a nuclear transport accident. This contention is admissible on the issue of public health and safety involved in the transportation of spent fuel under the requested, license amer &ents, Carolina Action Contention 5 is based upon the alleged poor safety record of the Applicant, and the fines which bave been levied upon it for safety violations.
Such issues have been raised ard dealt with in other NRC proceedings to which they were relevant. They are beycnd the scope of this proceeding, ani the objections will be sustained as to Cententicn 5.
At the prior special prehearing ccnference, Carolina Action distributed for the first time its proposed Contention 6.
Tbat conten-tien concerns the alleged anxiety and psychological wrry which the transportatien of nuclear waste would cause. This centention is beyced the scope of this proceeding, which involves ccn:pliance with the
. cmmiosion's regn1nHms providing reasonaole assurance of public health and safety from the dangers of radiation. Subjective individual anxieties and fears are likewise beyond the scope of NEPA inquiries.
If this contention is based upon fears of nuclear powr, that matter has been resolved by Congress and it is not within the purview of this Board.El Contention 6 is denied.
V.
On January 25, 1979, the Applicant filed a notion for the establish-ment of a hearing schedule. Applicant proposed the tanimtion of discovery 30 days after the issuance of a schedule order, the snMission of prefiled testinony 15 days thereafter, and the cmcsent of evidentiary hearings 15 days after that. Intervenor CESG objected, and the Staff suggested a 30-day discovery period followed by a prehearing conference to finalize schedules.
Although the Board is interested in expeditious proceedings, they nust also be so conducted as to be fair to all parties. Applicant's proposed schedule is entirely too smmnry, especially in view of the recent participation of NRDC and its right to mningful discovery and other aspects of trial preparation.
If the Applicant truly believes that the celerity set forth in its proposed schedule is feasible, it could file its written direct testimony and supportirg exhibits within 5I-Vernent Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, U.S.-, 55 L.Ed. 2d 460, 488 (1978).
_7_
2 or 3 weks. This muld probably focus discovery rather sbarply, and substnneinlly reduce the time required by the other parties for discovery and trial preparation.
All parties are directed to proceed expeditiously with discovery and seasonable preparation for the urmmesent of evidmeinry hearirgs.
The parties are alerted that the Board reserves the right to te_uinate discovery upon 45 days notice, and they should establish their own schedules and priorities with this in mind.
FOR THE Alm IC SAFELY AND LICENSEU BOA 10 n
',.,I-t i i
Marshall E. Miller, Chn,mnn Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of February 1979.