ML19330A108
| ML19330A108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1971 |
| From: | Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Saginaw Intervenor |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19330A104 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150875 | |
| Download: ML19330A108 (9) | |
Text
-
T T ~~~
yCKET NUMBER O,
.3n sm uo. 5t-wt sw UNITED STATIS OF AERICA ATOMIC ENER W COMMISSION c'
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUERS PO?TER COMPAW
)
Docket Hos. 50-329 50-330 3
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 C0CXEIED CSJEc 3
01 JUN 31971 = r 6
Wee et es seurm
-4 raise pne,en y ema Rulin.ns on Interrogatories Addressed to the AEC Staff 9)
N G
Intervenors have served a set of 336 interrogatories direct-ed to the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) and the Advisory Commit-tec on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
The AEC staff, while conceding that it vould be "willing to discuss a reasonabic set of interroga-tories," has generally objected on the ground that the interroga-tories cre "unrcasonabic and reficct a misconception as to the role of the staff" in a proceedin5 such as this.
The basis of the staff position is the claim that to answer these interro6atories would require months of work and would disrupt the operation of the staff not only in this proceeding but in all other cases.
The staff has also made specific objection to certain interro6atories.
Applicant has supported the staff position and has also filed a l
i
. These are in aldition to interrogatories served on the cpplicent and other partics.
8007150 8 g
i:.
s.
o o
. detailed set 'f objections.
The, staff, applicant and intervenors o
have filed extensive memoranda in support of their position.
The Board has entered two interim orders directing that some of the interrogatories be answered and has reserved judgment on the rest.
The key to the problem posed by the interrogatories is that they are designed, in the main, not to elicit the underlying facts but to probe the staff's reason for their conclusion that the proposed reactor qualifics for a construction permit.
The vice of the interrogatories is epitomized by No. 292 which would require the staff to " describe cach fact, calculation and assump-tion" on the basis of which it concludes that fourteen separate systens " trill be adequate to perform their intended functions."-
The interrogatory then Coos on to require that the AEC make a de-tailed comparison of this to previously licensed reactors.
In sum, what the intervenors scck in these interrogatories amounta to a written rationalisation by the staff of each decision on safety which has been made in this and many other proceedings.
To properly answer these interrogatories would, the Board is satisfied, require the staff to recxamine, rethin't, and reconstruct at least two years of discussion, conferences, etc. on many diverse aspects of these complicated systems.
It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that compl'te answers to these interrogatories would require e
the staff to prepare a justification, intelli ible to laymen, of G
e
q r\\ -
, the whole history of the development of pressurized water reac-tors, without, in the Board's view making a significant contri-bution to safety.
Insofar as the interrogatories seek to probe the sta.ff's decision process, Applicant has argued vigorously that they are objectionable under the so-called Vorgan doctrine, 'as enunciated in United States v. Moriten, 313 U.S. 409 (1941). We believe that the reliance on the Morgan doctrine is misplaced. The con-clusions of the staff here are not "a6cncy decision" in the same sense as in the Morgan case.
Nevertheless the Margan and other cases are relevant as a recognition of the practical difficulties s
for administration posed by examinations into the underlying reasons for staff decisions. These difficulties are multiplied where a multitude of complex technical questions are involved.
Ani the problems are exaccrbated here by the fact that intervenors seem to be chcllenging not just this construction permit but the whole atomic energy program.
~
We conclude that whatever the permission to serve inte'rroga-tories contained in the regulations may mean, it cannot be construed to require that the staff prepare tho' kind of analysis that these interrogatories would impose.
On the other hand,. the Board cannot accept the proposition -
that any inquiry into the adequacy of the staff review is inappro-priate.
Certainly the Board is not foreclosed from such an
E
_m
i
(]
k inquiry because the proceeding is contested; and if the Board is r
not foreclosed neither are the intervenors.
This does not mean that intervenors may examine into any such area to their hearts' content.
The Bocrd intends to control the degree of inquiry in line with the policies set forth in its order of March 3,1971.
The Board's discussion of the general nature of the interroga-tories does not, of course, dispose of the problem.
In view of-the failure of the staff to specifically object to most interroga-tories, the Board is left with the choice between overly broad interrogatories and insufficiently detailed objections.
At this stage of the proceeding it would not make sense to require inter-venors to franc now, less burdensome, questions, or require the staff to file now objections.
Given the expertise of the techni-cal members it seems preferabic for the Board to make its judg-a ment on the basis of the documents already roccived. AccordingNr the Board has carefully revieued the interrogatories and has ordered certain interrogatories to be answered.
Our criteria for decision included our view of the lines of inquiry likely to prove fruitful; consistency with the principles outlined earlier in this order; the availability of information from other sources; and the possibility of intervenors making their own calculations and analyscs.
i a
e y -,
(..=.--
~~
1.
'.}~.
g n
_5 The interrogatories to be answered by the staff have been e'
designated in carlier telegrams from the Board.
The objections to the remaining interrogatories are sus-tained.'
In addition to the Sencral ground that many are overly broad and bt = 'ensome as outlined above, they are objectionable for the reasons set forth below.
1.
Interrogatories 1-232. These interrogatories are duplicative of that s wed on applicant, the person with the primcry obligation in this case.
2.
All interrogatories addressed to the ACRS or to the staff involving its private communications to the ACRS. As indi-cated elscuhere, the value of the ACES is, in the Board's view, wholly dependent on preserving uninhibited communication with the staff.
It should also, of course, be noted that the ACRS isnotapartytothisproceedin6andinterrogatorics6f. dressed to it arc improper.
3 3.
All requests for the staff to make additional calcula-tions and analyses are denied..Intervenors can make their otm analyses and calculations if they feel the need.
1 A number of the interrogatories ask for detailed explana-4 tions and justifications of standard technical ' evaluations and 1
judgments.
For exc:nple, Iso. 251 would require a description in detail of considerations which undcrlie the conclusion that the e
4 r
r
l*'.".'*,.
(]-
F)
,, f _
design is " acceptable with regard to core physics, thermal, hy-
,e draulic and mechanical design. Where appropriate, the Safety g
Evaluation Report describes the factors which the staff considered.
If intervenors disagree with the conclusions reached, from the fa$ts availabic they should demonstrate affirmatively why the conclusion was wrong.
This observation is applicable to the following: 252, 253, 256-259, 261-264, 266, 269-275, 277, 278, 293, 295, 297, 298, 305-309, 311-315, 317.
5 No. 290, 291, 296, 301 and 302 ask for information which will be material at the operating license stage, or later, but need not be considered now.
- 6. No. 244-2 :16, 248, 249, 276 and 281 ask for calculations as to theoretical dosca and other natters which can be made by intervenors.
7.
No. 233 is objectionabic for the reasons given with respect to similar interrogatories addressed to other parties.
8.
No. 239, 243 and 324'ask for information about matters not at issue in this proceedirc.
9.
No. 251, 279, 280, 282, 283, 285 and 286 seek information which the applicant is responsible for supplying.
10.
No. 321, 323, 331 and 332 inquire about general AEc programs and are not specifically related to this procccding.
11.
No. 310, 327-330 ask for information contained in the Safety Evaluation Report.
.....e
-; ] ' ~.
(
q
_7_
32.
No. 294 and 326 call for speculative answers on un-e' knowable or hypothetical situations.
13 No. 287, 288 and 322 cock information partinent to the basis for 10 CFR part 20 14.
No. 260 and 300 would impose a substantial burden on the staff without any showing of need for further definition of the terms used by the staff.
15 No. 299 and 336 call for information available else-where and of doubtful materiality to this proceeding; 299(b) is objectionable, er.ong other reasons, as overly-broad.
' 6.
No. 335 has been answered.
1 17.
No. 236, 238 and 337 are essentially a scarch for docu-monts; the availability of doct %.its and various assertions' of
~
privilege are thc subject of separate motions. To the extent that No. 238 sccks the names of subordinates who performed evaluations, it is burden::ome and unnecessary. Any questions can be asked of the panel of vitnccscs produced by the staff.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f i :, N.
- [l '* lG..
/.
June 1, 1971 Arthur W. Murphy, Chairman r
6 e
r
. n
q ACTION COMPLETION DEADLINE CgL NumSEFgg
.c I
n i,.i. must.
i LOCATION e
DATE OP MU7k N
E Sensee comettese em Sommesse
-INFORMATIONAL COPY DISTRIBUTION
)
ACTION PROCES$lNO DATES
"""s
_ Com TO -
- 'l-~'
O' W 11 gg,g g, g
e
( D.
Rt
___ut
( f f,/.p rl..
ur go,lsiaal O Copy 0 Other
/,/,,J REMARus amply for sisasture of m. of
~
DEsCR:PTION toquests to be estified of esatse of reply to interswees
.:-- s s
M*
in the master of the N.41and massear swear Plassa.
M N EeEl$ N U M M f
I
^^ *^M DATE
. T.-
REFERRED TO Sheper f/estian S/26/71
$y98 M ise g
DE ( b 329)
^"f<* "
s aa.c e s, w -_
' Perm M32 %)
- * * ~
].
.p CTOR OF REGU ATION
~*'""
_U. S...,,,A, EC.
4' w.
l E.
e
'r ? m.. ;~,. COMMUNICATIONS CONTROL
. - n%.
, i.,, #.. s.
a bd'NOT'DETAC'M TH'll COPY'
+.s. ~,.h.., %:
g,
w
,.,m.,.
.- +
1 i
e e
e af WMk -
- - +
Tr g
,g 5 %;.* ip s t! '.M rJ i 9 E 7 C
- A '
O r. MM f
45-rom,m
..v.:.:_. m 3
- 9...,o,,,,..m.< 4 m, m,.
gg g
' g ;.up q;e;a ', yg.,fy ^ A " ' ' - "
l
?
s.g e -,
g.
?^
.e
- '%f D+:s,"*OJ
\\[
c gj, n:t w
- -r t
_