ML19340B375
| ML19340B375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 02700039 |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1980 |
| From: | Lessy R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8010220319 | |
| Download: ML19340B375 (6) | |
Text
.
i-,
10/20/80 9.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t
NUCLEAR RMULATORY COPEISSION l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC S, FETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
)
. Docket No. 27-39
)
l (Sheffield, Illinois Low-Level
)
l Radioactive llaste Disposal Site)
).
OBJECTIONS OF THE NRC STAFF TO INTERROGATORIES FILED BY INTERVENOR, CHICAG0 SECTION, AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY In accordance with the Licensing Board's "Prehearing Conference Order And l
Order Setting Tine For Discovery" dated September 9,1980, the NRC Staff I
herein files its objections to Interrogatories 4, 7, 9,10 and 15 propounded to the Staff by the Chicago Section, American Nuclear Society.
l l
A. -Interrogatory 4 requests that the Staff " list every public law, regulation, or document to-be used by the Staff to support your position.on each proposed l
l-
[ site closure] condition." The Staff objects to this interrogatory on two grounds.
First, it is based upon the incorrect assumption that each ;ite closure condition filed by the Staff must be posited upon a separate public i
law or regulation.
Second, the Staff objects to this interrogatory insofar as-it calls for the mental impression, opinions, conclusions or legal theories i
l
_of attorneys contrary to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(b)(2) and Rule 26(b)(3) of the i
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Staff is, however, willing to provic'?
any docu.nents which support its position on proposed site closure conditions.
18010220 38 V
2_
.B.
Interrogatory 7 states:
Identify every public health or safety risk, the NRC staff may allege as relevant to the termination of operations at-the Sheffield site, giving particulars as to the actual or projected number of persons at risk, the type and degree of risk, if any, and the physical. evidence, if any, to be relied on to establish such alleged risk.
Particularly in lig5? of the CS/ANS' position on appeal of the " termination Of operations at the Sheffield site" by the Licensing Board's May 3,1979 Order, the Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground of ambiguity.
The interrogatory is ambiguous for.two reasons.
First, CS/ANS does not specify which " termination of operations at the Sheffield site" the inter-rogatory is meant to address.
Does the interrogatory relate to NEC0's unilateral termination of operations at Sheffield in March of 1979? Or does the interrogatory refer to CS/ANS' position that the Licensing Board's May 3,1979 Order " effectively terminated" NEC0's operations at the Sheffield l
site. ~ 0r does this interrogatory refer to the closing of the Sheffield site in_ general as a possible outcome of this proceeding? Secondly, the inter-rogatory is ambiguous because it does not specify what level of risk it i
addresses.
IsL it concerned with acceptable risk, in light of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, l
unacceptable risk, or any measurable risk?
C.
Interrogatory 9 states:
Identify. all 'information concerning the _ costs of (a) providing ' protection against the risks identified in
-the answer to Interrogatory 7 and (b) complying with each condition described in the answer to Interrogatory 8.
L
.. v
.The St;ff objects to this iriterrogatory on three grounds.
First, it is posited upon an ambiguous interrogatory (7), and this interrogatory cannot be addressed until Interrogatory 7 is clarified.
Second, it is impossible for the Staff to answer this interrogatory in that the " costs of providing protection" would depend upon the selection by NEC0 (or others) of the methodology it would utilize.in'orcer to comply with a particular site-closure condition. Since the Staff does not know which methodology will be selected, it cannot access the costs.
Finally, assessment of the costs.of the unknown method would require a Staff analysis which may not exist. An interrogated party cannot be required todoresearchandgatherdata,S which it does not presently have, and this is particularly true for a methodology which may be unknown.
D.
Interrogatory 10 provides:
State whether compliance with any condition sought to be imposed on NEC0, against the will of NEC0, will relieve NEC0, the State of Illinois or the Commission of liability to the public in the event compliance with any such condition causes or contributes to ham to any member of the public or any damage to property.
The Staff objects to this interrogatory for a number of reasons.
First, it is ambiguous for it does not define the essential phrase " contributes to harm."
Second, the interrogatory does not specify at what point in time NECO " acts against its will." If the time frame the interrogatory addresses is some idenfinite time ~ in the future after this proceeding has been concluded and Y
- See Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2),
LBP-80-II, 11 NRC 477, 478 (1980).
r l
I site closure' and stabilization conditions are ordered. by the Licensing Board, the interrogatory concerns matters not _ relevant to this proceeding and beyond the jurisdiction of the presiding Licensing Board. The Staff also objects to i
'this interrogatory on the ground that it is essentially concerned with " liability j
to the public" which is not germane to this proceeding.
Finally, the Staff objects to this interrogatory insofar as it it calls for a legal opinion of an attorney, contrary to 10 C.F.R. 62.740(b)(2) and Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
E.
Interrogatory 15 states:
Identify by name, business address and telephone number each owner or occupant of any property which may be alleged by the staff to be at risk, unless the staff's conditions for termination are imposed on NECO.
The Staff objects to this interrogatory because it cannot be answered in its present form unless the phrase "at risk" is defined or clarified as explained in Part B above.
Respectfully submitted, Sf44 Roy P. Lessy Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 20th day of October, 1980.
(
- i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
In the Matter of.
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Docket No. 27-39 (Sheffield,' Illinois Low-Level'
-)
Radioactive Waste Disposal Site)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby. certify that copies of "0NE(310NS OF THE NRC STAFF TO INTERR0GATORIES FILED BY INTERVENOR, CHICAG0 SECTION, AMERICAN NUCLEAR-SOCIETY" 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 by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission internal mail system, this 20th day of October,1980:
Andrew C. Goodhape, Esq.
Cornelius J. Hollerich, Esq.
~
3320 Estellel Terrace State's Attorney Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Bureau County Court House Princeton, Illinois 61356 Dr. Linda W. Little.
5900 Hermitage Drive Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
Raleigh, NC 27612 Mary Jo ;iurray, Esq.
State of Illinois Environmental Control Division Dr. Forrest J. Remick 188 West Randolph Street 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Suite 2315 State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Scott Madson, Esq.
John M. Cannon, Esq.
Assistant State's Attorney Mid-America Legal Foundation 1
601 South Main ~ Street -
Suite 2245 Princeton, Illinois 61356 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 D. J. McRae, Esq.
217 West Second Street
~
Kewaunee,_ Illinois 61443 s
e m
a
_A.41XL T
~
i
(.
p,
.2-y
-Atomic Safety'and' Licensing Docketing and Service Sectio'n*
Board Panel *'
Office of the Secretary U.S. -Nuclear. Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D..C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Troy. B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
- Appeal'~ Panel
- tiark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear ~ Regulatory. Commission Conner, Moore & Corber Washington,-D.~C.' '20555 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1050 Robert Russell, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Johnson, Martin & Russell
-10 Park Avenue West Mr. Charles F. Eason
~ Princeton, Illinois 61356 Nuclear Engineering Co:tpany Director for Government Affairs
' Admiral Vincent T. de Poix.
-110017th Street, N.W.
Chaiman of the Board Suite 1000 for-Nuclear Engineering Co.
!.'ashington, D.C.
20036 P.O.-Box'7246 Louisville, KY 40207 g
,0
[,[dh/-
-Roy P. Lessy /
Counsel'for NRC Staff d
1 D *
- lD lD Il l Y M imM eMUJ]lL
'y',-
'