ML19309G201
| ML19309G201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Chesapeake Energy Alliance, METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005050124 | |
| Download: ML19309G201 (9) | |
Text
- _ - _ _ _ _ _
Bd 4/16/80 l lC
~
8 0 05050 tGW4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA q l p,.
N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
/
- w..
/
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Y
II APR : 61250 > IS Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
{
j 7.f;~ig ;gc;g[7 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Linda W. Little irmt b / p.lUQ- \\s
/
In the Matter of
)
ct
)
Docket No. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
(Restart)
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON LICENSEE'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF CEA (April 16, 1980)
The licensee served its "first set" of interrogatories upon the intervenor Chesapeake Energy Alliance (CEA) on January 18, 1980.
On March 17, CEA filed its " response" to 1/
the interrogatories.-
On March 31, licensee served its motion to compel' CEA answers to certain of licensee's responses.
CEA has not answered the motion to compel.
Licensee's motion to compel identifies three categories of asserted answer failures:
- 1) the " toss of the ball back" answer, 2) the non-responsive or incomplete answer and 3) no answer whatever.
The board has examined each of the interroga-tories as to which licensee seeks to compel answers.
Each
-1/
CEA's "respons e" would have been timely if complete.
The original date for answering the interrogatories would have been February 6, 1980 but the board extended the due date for all parties until March 17.
1 s
)
. interrogatory is relevant to the proceeding and the informa-tion sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Therefore licensee is entitled to an accurate and complete answer to its interroga-tories.
10 CFR 62.740(a) & (b)(1).
However, as was the case in our earlier rulings on licensee 's motions to compel answers from intervenors ECNP and TMIA, (April 11), the board modifies or clarifies some of the interrogatories.
Where interrogatories, or portions thereof, seek the identity of all documents and persons having informa-(
tion relating to a particular CEA statement, contention or l
allegation, (e.g.,
interrogatory 5-3 (b) & (c) ; 7-1 (c) & (d))
the response may be limited to identifying documents and persons relied upon by CEA in support of its respective state-ment, contention, or allegation.
Toss-the-Ball-Back Responses Most of CEA's responses are, what has been termed by licensee to be " toss-the-ball-back" answers.
For example:
Interrogatory 12-2.
Describe the accidents which CEA contends are credible and not bounded by the TMI-l design basis accidents.
CEA's Response 12-2.
The answers to this interrogatory include those answers to CEA's interrogatories on this subject provided by Licensee and NRC, along with any such accidents that may be omitted from their answers.
t l
l I
1 J
. These answers are, of course, unacceptable.
Their defects are obvious.
Where CEA states that the information in answer to a respective interrogatory is described or will be described in the answers by licensee and staff to its own interrogatories, CEA is making, at best, an answer not known by it to be true, and at worst, a false statement.
On March 17, the licensee had not yet answered CEA's interrogatory.
The staff had answered only part of CEA's interrogatories and then not in all the categories referred to by CEA.
Moreover, either the answers were incomplete, because they did not include information already known to CEA from all sources, or CEA had no such other information.
In either event CEA acted improperly.
If it had other information, it should have provided it.
If it had no other information, CEA should not have included in its responses such phrases as,.
" answers to this interrogatory include those answers to CEA's interrogatories on this subject provided by Licensee and NRC...."
(e.g. response 12-2 supra).
Use of the word " include" implies that CEA does in fact have other information.
NRC's interven-tion rules, of course, presume that intervenors have factual bases for their contentions.
CEA's responses to licensee's interrogatories to the effect that the answer sought also exists in information that may be omitted from the responses to CEA's interrogatories by the licensee and the staff answer nothing.
. CEA's response to interrogatories 5-1(a), 5-1(b),
5-2, 5-3 proper, 5-3 (a ), 5-3 (b ), 5-3 (c ),
5-4, 6-1 proper, 6 -1 (b ),
6-1 (c ), 6-1 (d ), 7-1 proper, 7-1 (a ), 7 -1 (b ), 7 -1 (c ),
7.- 1 (d ),
7-2 proper, 7 -2 (a ), 7 -2 (b ), 7-2 (c ), 7 -2 (d ), 8-1 proper, 8-1(a), 8-1 (b ), 8-1(c), and 12-2 are in the " toss-the-ball-I back" category.
CEA is directed to answer each of these interrogatories.
Such answers shall fully reveal all informa-tion known to CEA upon which it depends for support of its contentions, not only the information produced in response to its interrogatories.
Licensee and staff have now responded i
to CEA's interrogatories.
If the only information CEA has in 1
response to a given interrogatory is information made known to it by the licensee and staff in response to CEA's interrogatories, I
it shall so state and it shall specify that information.
If CEA has no information with respect to a given interrogatory, it shall also state that fact.
A failure to respond to an interroga-tory, may, among other things, lead to the presumption that CEA has no information upon which it may form an answer.
s Incomplete or Nonresponsive Answers Several of CEA's answers may be categorized as incomplete or non-responsive.
These are interrogatories 5-1 proper, 5-4 (second part),
5-5, 6-3 (b ), 6-3 (c ), 12-3 and 12-4 (second part).
\\
f Interrogatory 5-1 Proper Question:
Describe with particularity the "possible interference from [ Unit 2] contaminated water with storage space that might be required in the event of a TMI-l accident."
l Answer:
The 'possible interference' refers to-the occupation of storage tanks, pipes, etc.,
with radioactive water from TMI-2 so as to prevent that storage space to be used to house contaminated water from a possible accident at TMI-1.
We agree with licensee that CEA's answer to 5-1 proper is incomplete, in that the term "etc." is not fully responsive.
CEA is ordered to complete the answer.
l Interrogatory 5-4 (Second Part)
Question:
Identify any evidence based on actual operation
~
of EPICOR-II of which CEA is aware indicating that the effectiveness, reliability and/or safety of EPICOR-II is not as anticipated prior to actual operation.
Answer:
The evidence of lack of effectiveness or reliability of EPICOR-II will include that provided by Licensee and NRC in their answers to CEA interrogatories on this subject.
Reports of EPICOR-II functioning less effectively than anticipated have been observed in newspapers by CEA, however, the names and dates of those newspaper reports are not known to CEA.
The first sentence of CEA's response 5-4 is covered in our order above on " toss-the-ball-back'" answers.
Licensee also complains that CEA relies in part upon newspaper reports which CEA declines to identify.
We do not read CEA response as declining to identify the news reports.
Rather, CEA doesn't know the names and dates of these reports.
We cannot compel CEA's representative to recall what he has forgotten.
Licensee will have its opportunity for relief when CEA's response to interrogatory 5-4 is produced by this order,
D
. Interrogatory 5-5 Question:
Describe the basis for CEA's claim that a delay in the ultimate disposal of processed TMI-2 wastewater may interfere with emergency storage facilities that may be needed in the event of an accident at Unit 1.
Answer:
The principal element of the claim is based on the growing risk from corrosion and embrittlement of components of the reactor coolant system of TMI-2 resulting from continued exposure of those components to high levels of radioactivity, and the ensuing greater probabilities of further accidents and/or releases of radioactive effluents from TMI-2.
CEA's response is incomplete and unresponsive.
The use of the phrase " principal element" implies the existence of other elements.
CEA is directed to specify those other elements.
Licensee also complains that CEA's discussion of further accidents at TMI does not relate to any interface "with emergency storage facilities that may be needed in the event of an accident at Unit 1."
We agree that the relation-ships involved in the response require further explanation to be responsive to the interrogatory.
CEA is directed to provide l
further elaboration in its response to interrogatory 5-5.
Interrogatories 6-3 (b) and (c)
Question:
Explain the basis for CEA's claim that "as long as TMI-2 continues to generate surplus radio-active water that TMI-2 continues to pose the threat of returning to an active emergency status."
(a )
Define what CEA means by the phrase l
" returning to an active emergency status."
(b)
Explain with particularity the risk to safe operation of Unit 1 posed by such
" emergency status."
, (c)
Is this risk the same as the "potentially severe conflict with operation of TMI-1" referred to in the last sentence of Contention No. 6?
Explain what CEA means by " severe conflict with operation of TMI -1. "
CEA's answer to interrogatory 6-3 (b) states:
(b)
The particular risks to the safe operation of TMI-l posed by such ' emergency status' would of necessity depend on the specific form and parameters of the emergency con-dition at TMI-2.
CEA's response to interrogatory 6-3(c) states:
(c)
Generally speaking, yes.
' Severe conflict
.' is meant to mean any condition that would severely conflict with the operation of TMI-1, including but not limited to the release of sufficient radiation to require the evacuation of the entire TMI facility, and/or would terminate offsite and/or onsite power for the operation of TMI-1.
This answer is defective on two accounts.
First, having failed to identify risks in response to 6-3(b), CEA's reference to those risks in its response 6-3(c) is meaningless.
- Second, licensee requests a definition of"'any condition that would severely conflict with the operation of TMI-1,' either by a specific, non-tautological definition, or by a comprehensive listing of such postulated conflicts." This is a reasonable request.
CEA is directed to respond to 6-3(c).
Interrogatory 12-3 Question:
Explain as to each accident identified in.
answer to interrogatory 12-2 the nexus between such accident and the TMI-2 accident.
8_
Answer:
The specific aspects of the nexus between each of the accidents and the TMI-2 accident will vary according to the particular elements of each accident scenario.
Every accident will share the common nexus of falling into the class of accidents not included in the design basis of TMI-1.
The basic defect in CEA's answer to interrogatory 12-3 is that CEA failed to identify any accident in response to 2/
interrogatory 12-2.-
Even assuming specific answers to interrogatories 12-2, however, CEA's method of answering would be f aulty.
As licensee notes in its motion to compel, the response restates the self evident.
In the final sentence of the response, CEA simply begs the question.
We have already ordered CEA to respond in detail to interrogatory 12-2.
With respect to each of the details in its 12-2 response, CEA is further directed to respond to interrogatory 12-3.
Interrogatory 12-4 (Second Part)
Question:
Explain what CEA means when it contends that an accident is not " bounded" by the design basis accidents for TMI.
Indicate in particular as to each accident identified in answer to interrogatory 12-2 whether the term " bounded" refers to accident events or accident consequences or both.
Answer:
CEA means by
'not bounded' that an accident is not included in the boundaries of that class of accidents for which the. design basis of TMI-l has been established, whether those boundaries refer
-2/
Response 12-2 was the example shown in the toss-the-ball-bank discussion above, p.2.
m 9-to specific events or to the consequences of the accidents.
As to which of those a given accident is not bounded by, that will vary according to the specific characteristics of each accident.
Licensee is satisfied with CEA's definition of "not bounded" (first sentence of response 12-4).
- However, licensee correctly complains that the second sentence of CEA's answer 12-4 is not responsive.
With respect to each accident identified by CEA in response to the order to respond to interrogat6ry 12-2, CEA is directed to provide the particulars of each accident as requested in interrogatory 12-4, (second part).
No Answers CEA provided no answers whatever to interrogatories 5-1 (c ), 6-1 proper, 7-1 proper and 7-2 proper.
Licensee is entitled to answers to these interrogatories and CEA is directed to answer them.
CEA is directed to answer the interrogatories covered by this order within 10 days after the service of this order.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/
$ ' W#
Ivan W. Smi'th, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland April 16, 1980.
.2