ML19344A635
| ML19344A635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1980 |
| From: | Rothschild M NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008210380 | |
| Download: ML19344A635 (33) | |
Text
'
08/19/80 o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-1308 (Renewal of SNM-1265)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility; NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO CERTAIN STAFF INTERR0GATORIES TO INTERVEi40R STATE OF ILLIN0IS OF JULY 15, 1980 I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On July 15, 1980, the NRC Staff (Staff) filed a series of interrogatories and requests for production of dccuments directed to Intervenor the State of Illinois (Illinois or Intervenor) with regard to Illinois' admitted conten-tions. On August 4,1980, Illinois filed " Objections and Answers to Inter-rogatories Propounded By Staff".
In responding to these interrogatories, Illinois " generally objected to the Interrogatories propounded by the Staff as being unduly burdensome and oppressive in that the staff has submitted 27 pages of Interrogatories, some 68 separate questions, to be answered within a two week period." Without waiving this objection, Illinois stated that it "has attempted to answer these Interrogatories within the time allotted by the Board."E E Illinois further stated that "All documents referred to herein are available for Staff examination in the Office of the Attorney General, 188 West Rar. alph, Suite 2315, Chicago, Illinois 60601."
80o8210330 g
M
~
"I~
i.
-2:
As.-' explained below,- Illinois'; general objection to the Staff's interrog-atories'is.without merit. 'In addition, certain of the answers are not
~
c responsive'andido not comply with the Staff's request that Illinois,
- pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740b, answer separately and fully, each interrogatory.
The-specific interrogatories as. to which the Staff seeks an order compelling
- responsive answers and bases for the Staff's request are set forth below.
II.
STAFF'S RESPONSE TO ILLIN0IS' GENERAL OBJECTION The' Staff believes' there is no merit to Illinois' general objection to the
- Staff's' interrogatories in which it is asserted that such interrogatories are unduly burdensome and oppressive..First of all, the Staff notes that.
there are numerous subparts to Illinois' 7 admitted contentions, which raise a number of issues.- In these circumstances, the number of Staff interrog-atories propounded to Illinois is not unreasonable and simply reflects the Staff's attempt to obtain information from Illinois on the many allegations in Illinois' multi-part contentions. Although Illinois states that the
- Staff's interrogatories' were to be answered within a two week period, in l
-fact the Licensing Board's extended discovery schedule provided for a twenty (20) ' day period for. all parties to object or-respond to all discovery requests.
' The Staff was thus -als'o required to respond to Illinois' multiple discovery l
requests within this same period..Moreover, Illinois could have, after
- receipt of Staff interrogatories, sought an extension Of time in which to
-respond to those ' interrogatories..No such extension was. requested by Illinois.
In view ofJthe foregoing,5 Illinois' general objection is without merit.
t
. III.
STAFF'S REQUEST FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSIVE ANSWERS Interrogatory G-4 G-4. Identify by author, title, date of publication and publisher, all books, documents.and papers that you intend to employ or rely upon in presenting your direct case on (a) Contention 1 (b) Contention 2 (c) Contention 3 (d) Contention 4
'(e). Contention 5 (f) Contention 6 (g) Contention 7 and provide copies of, or make available for Staff inspection and ccpying, those items.
Response to -Interrogatory G-4 G-4. See the documents specifically identified herein. Any other documents currently in the possession of Illinois are available for inspection.
Interrogatory G-4 requests the identity of all books, documents and papers that Illinois intends to employ or rely upon in presenting its direct case on all.of.its contentions-Although the first part of Illinois' answer is not entirely' responsive to this interrogatory, Illinois has identified some docunents in its responses to other interrogatoiies.
However, the second J
part of Illinois' response, referring to any other documents in Illinois' possession, 'is clearly unresponsive since the interrogatory did not seek an ioentification of "any other documents" in Illinois' possession but only
(
' Lthose documents which Illinois intends to employ or rely upon in presenting its direct case on'its contentions. Consequently, Illinois should be required
- to identify "any other documents" currently in its possession which it intends to employ or rely upon in presenting its direct case.
Interrogatory G-5
.G-5.
If the representations made in (a) Contention 1 (b) Contention 2 (c) Contention 3 (d) Contention 4 (e) Contention 5 (f) Contention 6 (g) Contention 7 are based in whole or in part on any documents prepared by the Licensee or NRC Staff which you contend are deficient, identify the documents and specify the particular portions thereof you regard as deficient and explain why they are deficient.
Response to Interrogatory G-5 G-5. See the contentions and the specific answers herein.
Although certain of Illinois' contentions allege that particular Licensee documents are deficient, with the exception of contention 4(a), Illinois does not specify in its contentions the particular portions thereof which
--IllinoisL regards to be _ deficient. Moreover, none of the answers provided by Illinois-to the Staff's interrogatories identify any documents prepared by i
I v
i
the Licensee or NRC Staff which Illinois contends are deficient nor does Illinois-in its~ answers specify the portions of any documents regarded to be deficient or explain why they are deficient.
Consequently, Illinois' answer to this interrogatory is incomplete and unresponsive. The Staff therefore requests that -Illinois be ordered to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to Staff interrogatory G-5.
Interrogatory Cl-1, Cl-2, Cl-3, Cl-4, Cl-6, C1-7 Cl-1.
Do you assert in Contention 1(a) that there could be simultaneous accidental radioactive releases from the Dresden Nuclear Power Station and the Morris Spent Fuel Storage Facility?
Cl-2.
If the answer to Interrogatory Cl-1 is "yes," state specifically and in~ detail the basis for such assertion.
If you have no basis, so state.
Cl-3.
If the answer to Interrogatory Cl-1 is "yes," specifically iden-tify and describe:
(a) the transients, accidents or abnomal occurrences at Dresden and (b) the transients, accidents or abnomal occurrences at the Morris Spent Fuel Storage Facility which could result in the " simultaneous accidental radioactive releases" referred to in Contention 1(a) and describe the manner in which such transients, accidents or abnomal occurrences could result in radio-active releases.
Cl-4.
With regard to Dresden and the Morris Spent Fuel Storage Facility, do you believe that one or more of the transients, accidents or abnomal occurrences identified for one facility in response to Interrogatory Cl-3 could cause one or more of the transients, accidents or abnomal occurrences identified for the other facil-ity? 'If so, identify such transients, accidents or abnomal t
occurrences and provide the basis for your belief in this regard.
l If-not, provide. the basis for your assertion that simultaneous l
accidental radioactive releases from Dresden and the Morris Spent Fuel Storage: Facility could occur.
R C1-6.
. Define the-term " consequences" as used in Contention 1(a) and describe in detail' the " consequences 'of simultaneous accidental-radioactive releases" referred to in that contention.
Cl-7.
With regard to Contention 1(a), indicate the CSAR description that you would consider to be adequate and provide the basis for your position in. this regard.
Res ponse to Interrogatory Cl-1, Cl-2, Cl-3, Cl-4, 'Cl-6, Cl-7
-Cl-1..
Yes.
Cl-2.
'Due to the proximity of the two facilities a class 9 accident or-similar incident at Dresden could require evacuation of personnel at the Morris facility thus renoving all human control and safe-guards.
In addition the same incident e.g. a tornado could cause the simultaneous release of radiation at both facilities.
Cl-3.
See answer to Cl-2.
1 Cl-4.-
See answer to Cl-2.
Cl-6.
" Consequences" means results or effects.
See answer to Cl-2.
Cl-7.
Illinois objects that this question calls for pure speculation, requests facts beyond the knowledge of Illinois, is beyond the scope of. discovery, and is the burden of the applicant not Illinois.
In interrogatory Cl-1 ~to Cl-6, Illinois is -asked to set forth specifically -
and in detail the bases for its assertions in Contention 1(a) that the
. Licensee's Consolidated Safety Analysis Report (CSAR) does not adequately describe 'the ' consequences of simultaneous accidental radioactive releases from the Dresden Nuclear Power Station and the Morris Spent Fuel Storage Facility. These parts of interrogatory C-1 are designed to elicit a parti-i
. cularized statement of the reasons for Intervenor's claim in Contention 1(a)...The Staff was, in essence, seeking to determine what specific transients, accidents or abnormal occurrences at Dresden and GE Morris could Dresult-in' simultaneous accidental radioactive releases; the manner in which t
lE
such transients : accidents or abnonnal occurrences could result in radio-active releases and the " consequences" of the simultaneous releases. referred to in the contention.- Intervenor's answers are not responsive to the Staff's interrogatories.
'In its. response to interrogatory Cl-2, Intervenor merely mentions a Class 9 accident,U "similar incident" and a ternado. This answer does not respond to the interrogatory's request that Illinois state specifically and in detail the basis for its assertion in Contention 1(a). Moreover, in respond-ing to interrogatories Cl-3, Cl-4 and Cl-6, which seek descriptions and definitions, Illinois merely refers back to its response to interrogatory Cl-2.
Such answers are patently unresponsive and do not provide the descrip-tions, bases and definitions sought in the interrogatories.
Neither the Staff nor the Licensing Board and parties should be required to speculate as to the detailed and specific bases for Intervenor's assertions in Contention 1(a), yet speculation is all that is possible in view of the response provided by Intervenor here. Accordingly, Intervenor should be required to provide a full and direct response to interrogatories Cl-2, Cl-3, Cl-4 and Cl-6.
4 Since Intervenor has asserted in Contention 1(a) that the Licensee's CSAR does not adequately describe the consequences of simultaneous accidental Y n " Order Ruling on Motions By NRC Staff and Intervenor, State of I
Illinois for Reconsideration of Ruling on Contentions of the Parties,"
July 11,1980,.the Licensing Board rejected Illinois' request for reconsideration of the denial of a proposed contention relating to the effects on the Morris. facility of a Class 9 accident at the adjacent Dresden reactor. Consequently, consideration of Class 9 accidents is not a. matter in issue in this proceeding.
. c radioactive releases from Dresden and GE Morris, interrogatory Cl-7 seeks to determine what kind of description Intervenor believes to be adequate and rhy.
Intervenor does not provide this information but instead, objects on the grounds that "the question calls for mere speculation, requests facts beyond the knowledge of Illinois,-is beyond the scope of discovery and is the burden of the applicant, not Illinois". This answer is argumentative, evasive and wholly unresponsive.
Illinois itself has asserted that the CSAR description is inadequate and is in the best position to know what iti would consider to be an adequate CSAR description. Accordingly, Intervenor should be ordered to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to interrogatory Cl-7.
Interrogatory Cl-9 Cl-9.
As.toContention1(b)(i):
(a) describe the tornado impelled missile referred to and state the basis for the assertion that such a missile could be generated by a tornado and could impact the
- Morris Spent Fuel Storage Facility; (b) describe the tornado missile accident referred to and state the ' basis for the assertion that such an accident could be caused by a tornado missile at the Morris Spent Fuel Storage Facility; (c) describe the tornado missile accident consequences referred to and state the basis for your. assertion that such conse-quences could occur;-
(d) state the basis for your assertion that radioactive releases from a tornado missile accident could exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits; (e) indicate the CSAR description of the risks and conse-quences of tornado missile accidents that yjx[ would consider to be adequate _and provide the basis for your position in this regard.
Response to Interrogatory Cl-9 Cl-9.
(a) any object which could be carried by a tornado and which could breach the walls of the facility or in any other way disrupt safe activities at the facility thus causing or allowing a release of radioactivity.
See also MHB Report.
(b)
See answer to (a) above.
(c) - See answer to (a) above.
(d) Seeanswerto(a)~above.
(e) See objection to Cl-7.
Interrogatory Cl-9 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 1(b)(1) in which it is claimed that the Licensee's CSAR does not adequately describe the risks and consequences of the release of radioactivity in excess of 10 CFR. Part 20 regulations as a result of the consequences of an accident caused l'y a tornado impelled missile.
In essence, Staff's interrogatories seek to determine the tornado-impelled missile, tornado missile accident and conse-quences referred to and the bases for Intervenor's assertinns that such a missile accident and consequences could occur. Since Intervenor asserted in Contention 1(b)(1) that the CSAR description of the risks and consequences of tornado missile accidents is inadequate, interrogatory Cl-9(e) seeks to detemine the CSAR description of such accidents which Intervenor would consider adequate.
Intervenor's answers are evasive and unresponsive.
In responding to inter-rogatory Cl-9(a), Intervenor refers to the "MHB Report",E ut does not b
E 'Illinoit states that "MHB Report" means a study entitled " Technical Review of Risk Due to Expansion of the Morris Operation Spent Nuclear
- Fuel.!corage," by MHBETechnical Associates dated February 1979.
See
" Objections and Answers to Interrogatories Propounded By Staff," p.2.
In response to a request from Cou_nsel for NRC Staff, Counsel for Illinois transmitted.a copy of_ this report to the Staff, which was
~
received on August 18,-1980.
state in which ways that report provides a basis for its assertion or even provide the relevant page 'or section numbers of that report.
Intervenor
. does-not even attempt to answer interrogatory Cl-9(b), (c) and (d), but merely refers to the incomplete answer provided to interrogatory Cl-9(a).
The' objection to interrogatory Cl-9(e) is the same as that made with respect.
to interrogatory Cl-7 and, is similarly argumentative and without merit.
Accordingly, Intervenor should be directed to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to interrogatory Cl-9.
Interrogatory Cl-10 C1-10.
As to Contention 1(b)(ii):
(a) specifically describe the loss of coolant accident re-ferred to, describe the mechanism causing such loss of coolant accident, and state the basis for your assertion that such loss of coolant accident could occur;
~(b) identify the " building structure" and describe the " rift" in the building structure referred to, describe the mechanism or accident causing such a " rift", and state the basis for your assertion that such a rift could occur; (c) state the basis for your assertion that the loss of coolant l
accident could occur in-conjunction with an accident Cdusing a rift in the building structure;
-(d) describe the consequences (referred to in Contention
~
1(b)(ii)) 'of a loss of coolant accident alone and the
-basis for your assertion that such consequences could
. occur;.
-(e) describe the consequences (referred to in Contention 1(b)(ii)) of a loss of coolant accident in conjunction
.with an accident causing a rift in the building structure
and state the basis for your assertion that such conse-Equences could occur; (f) state the basis for'your assertion'that radioactive releases from-a loss of coolant accident alone or a loss of coolant accident in conjunction with an accident causing a rift in the building structure could exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits; (g) indicate the CSAR description of the risks and conse-quences of a loss of coolant accident and of a loss of coolant accident in conjunction with an accident causing a rift in the building structure that you would consider to be adequate and provide the basis for your position in this regard.
Response to Interrogatory Cl-10 Cl-10.
(a) See'MHB Report.
(b)
" Building structure" is self-explanation.
[ sic]
" Rift" is any break, breach or split.
See MH3 Report.
(c) See MHB Report.
(d) See MHB Report.
(e) See MHB Report.
(f) See MHB Report.
(g) See objection to Cl-7.
' Interroptory C1-10 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 1(b)(ii) in which it is claimed that the licensee's CSAR does not adequately describe the risks and consequences of the release of radioactive elements in excess of Part 20 regulations as a result of a -loss-of-coolant accident, alone and in conjunction with an accident which has caused a rift in the building struc-tu re..
In this interrogatory, the Staff seeks a description of " loss-of-coolant accident", " building structure", " rift in the building structure",
and the consequences of a loss-of-coolant accident, alone or in conjunction i
with an accident which has caused a rift in the building structure.
In te r-venor's answers are totally unresponsive. With respect to interrogatory Cl-9(a), Intervenor merely refers to the f4HB report, without even providing page or-section numbers.. The Staff does not agree that the term " building structure" _is "self-explanation" [ sic] as Illinois states in response to
' interrogatory Cl-10(b). The fiorris Operation Spent Fuel Storage Facility consists of mre than one building, and it is incumbent upon Intervenor to identify which building it is referring to in Contention 1(b)(ii).
Rather than responding to interrogatory C1-10(c)-(f), Intervenor merely refe s to
~
"the fiHB Report". Neither the Staff, Licensing Board nor other parties should be required to refer to that document in an effort to glean which portions, if any, contain the infomation which is sought by the Staff in its interrogatories.O In addition, for the reasons stated with respect to Intervenor's response to interrogatory Cl-7, Illinois' answer to interrog-atory C1-10(g) is argumentative, evasive and totally unresponsive.
Accordingly, Intervenor should be ordered to provide full, dire:t and responsive answers to interrogatory C1-10.
Interrogatory Cl-11 C1-11.
As to Contention (1)(b)(iii):
-(a)' describe specifically and in detail the " earthquake-related accidents" referred to and state the basis for your assertion that each of those accidents could result from the earthquakes the facility is required to resist under the existing facility license; O The Staff is not aware whether or not. Illinois has provided that
. report to the Licensing Board and other parties.
- (b) describe the consequences (referred to in Contention 1(b)(iii)) of the identified earthquake-related accidents
~
and state the' basis for your assertion that such conse-
-quences could occur; (c) state the basis for your assertion that. radioactive releases from earthquake-related accidents could exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits; (d) indicate the CSAR description of the risks and consequences of earthquake-related accidents that you would consider to be adequate and' provide the basis for your position in this regard.
Response to Interrogatory Cl-11 Cl-11.
(a) Any rift, breach, break, crack or rupture in the facility structure, including the pool and piping or any damage.to the casks, baskets or fuel causing or allowing the release of radioactivity.
(b) See answer to-(a) above and MHB Report.
(c) See answer to (a) above and MHB Report.
(d) See objection to Cl-7.
Interrogatory Cl-11 is directed at Intervenor's Contention 1(b)(iii), in which-Intervenor asserts that the Licensee's CSAR does not adequately describe the risks and consequences of the release of radioactive elements in excess of regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 as a result of earthquake-related accidents.
In essence, the purpose of the interrogatory was to attempt to ascertain the earthquake-related accidents referred to and the basis for Intervenor's contention that accidents at GE Morris could result from earth-quakes the-facility is required to resist under the existing facility license.
With respect to-Intervenor's response to interrogatory Cl-11(a), Intervenor completely fails to provide the basis for its assertion that acci(ents "co' ld result from the earthquakes the facility is required to resist under u
i
. the existing facility license".
Intervenor's answers to interrogatory Cl-11(b) and (c) merely refer to the incomplete response provided in response to interrogatory Cl-11(a) and are thus similarly defective.
In response to interrogatory Cl-11(d), Intervenor merely refers to Intervenor's objection to interrogatory Cl-7.
The objection to interrogatory Cl-7 is-without rerit.
For these reasons, Intervenor should be directed to provide full, direct, and responsive answers to interrogatory C1-11.
Interrogatory C1-12 C1-12.
As to Contention 1(b)(iv):
(a) describe specifically the " sabotage related accidents not analyzed in NEDM-20682" which you assert should be con-sidered and state the basis for your assertion that such accidents could occur and should be evaluated; (b) describe the consequences (referred to in Contention 1(b)(iv)) of the identified sabotage-related accidents and state the basis for your assertion that such consequences could occur; (c). state the basis for your assertion that radioactive releases from sabotage-related accidents could exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits; (d) indicate the CSAR description of the risks and conse-quences of sabotage-related accidents that Lou would consider to be adequate and provide the basis for your position in this regard.
Response to Interrogtory Cl-12 C1-12.
(a) See MHB Report.
(b) See MHB Report.
. (c) See MHB Report.
(d) See objection to Cl-7.
Interrogatory Cl-12 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 1(b)(iv) in which Intervenor alleges that the Licensee's CSAR does not adequately describe the risks and consequences of the release of radioactive elements in excess of 10 CFR Part 20 regulations as a result of " sabotage related accidents not analyzed in NEDM-20682". The Staff was seeking to detennine what sabotage-related accidents Intervenor was referring to, the consequences of the identified sabotage-related accidents and the basis for Intervenor's assertion that such accidents and consequences could occur. None of this information was set forth in Intervenor's answer. The answer merely refers to "the MHB Report" and an objection to a previous interrogatory. The answer is totally unresponsive.
For this reason, the Staff requests that Intervenor be directed to provide a full, direct, responsive answer to interrogatory Cl-12.
Interrogatory C2 C2-1 State specifically the reasons why the GE Morris Physical Security Plan does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73.
Include in your response an identification of the specific sections of 10 CFR Part 73 which you believe are not met and provide the basis for your assertions that those sections are not met.
j C2-2 Describe in detail the " advances in the technology of explosives" referred to in Contention 2 and state the basis for your assertion that 'such " advances in the technology of explosives... could make sabotage a more probable event" at the GE Morris facility.
C2-3 Indicate the CSAR assessment of credible risks of sabotage-related events. accounting for advances in the technology of explosives that you would consider to be adequate and provide the basis o
for your position in this regard.'
4 16 -
' Response to Interrogatory C2
~
C2-1-See MHB Report.'
C2-2 " Advances.in the techndlogy. of-explosives" refers to improve-
.mant in composition, size, effectiveness, methods of conceal-
~
ment and transportation and. techniques and devices for deto--
nation.-~These advances make sabotage.more effective,. easier to accomplish, and make it easier-for a saboteur to plant, conceal
' and detonate explosives and then to escape. These make sabotage more. effective and of less risk to a saboteur and thus more probable.
C2-3 See objection to Cl-7.
Interrogatory C2 requests a specific and detailed statement of the basis for Intervenor's assertion in Contention 2 that the GE Morris Physical Security Plan does not meet-the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 and that the CSAR does not provide an adequate assessment of credible risks of sabotage related events' The Staff was seeking to detennine why Illinois believes that the GE Morris Physical' Security Plan does not meet the requirements in 10 CFR Part 73 and what portions of the regulations are not met, what " advances in-the technology of explosives" Illinois was referring to and the CSAR assess-f ment of credible risks of sabotage-related events which Illinois would consider adequate. Other than the answer to interrogatory C2-2, none of this i.nfonnation was provided, Illinois merely refers to the "MHB Report"
. and an Objection to a-previous interrogatory. Neither the Staff nor the
- Licensing Board should be required to speculate as to why Illinois asserts in-Contention 2 that the GE Horris physical security plan does not meet the requirements in'10 CFR Part 73 or as to the CSAR assessment of credible risks of sabotage-related events which Illinois would consider to be adequate, yet speculation.is all that is possible in view of the responses provided by
- Illinois here. Accordingly, Intervenor should be directed to provide
-full : direct tand resoonsiv'e answers to interrogatories C2 I and C2-3.
a w
w
-weo e
m w
s e
am-g ew wer-~~
e
g Interrogatory C3-2, C2-2.
Describe the " projected effects on... health" referred to in Contention _3.
If occupational exposure to radiation at the GE Morris facility is maintained at ce below the limits set forth in NRC regulations, what health effects do you contend will occur and what is the basis for your assertion in this' regard? What is the basis for your assertion that such health effects must be considered?
Response to Interrogatory C3-2 C3-2.
See MHB Report.
Interrogatory C3-2' is directed to Intervenor's Contention 3, in which Inter-venor alleges that, for a number of reasons, the CSAR underestimates or does not state fully the projected effects on personnel, and their families from occupational exposure to radiation.
Rather than respond to interrogatory C3-2, Intervenor once again refers to "the MHB Report". The Staff, Licensing Board and other parties should not be requested to refer to that document
'.n order to ascertain the meaning of terTas contained in Intervenor's' contention or the basis underlying the contention.
Intervenor's vague reference to the MHB Report does not answer the' interrogatory and the answer is totally unresponsive. Accordingly, Intervenor should be ordered te provide a complete, direct and r:sponsive answer to this interrogatory.
Iriterrogatory C3-3 C3-3.:
. As to Contention 3(a):
-(a) state the manner in which the CSAR's failure to state total whole body exposure to occupational personnel 1
I*
results in an underestimate or an incomplete statement of health effects on personnel; (b) : describe the manner ir which whole body exposures to occupational personnel can affect the health of the families of such personnel and provide the basis for your response in this regard.
Response to Interrogatory C3 C3-3.
(a) See MHB Report.
(b)
Illinois objects on the grounds that this Interrogatory is beyond the scope of-discovery in that " families" is not relevant or material to Contention 3(a).
In interrogatory C3-3, the Staff seeks detailed and specific infomation related to the assertions in Contention 3(a) that the CSAR underestimates the projected effects on the health of personnel, and their families from occupational exposure to radiation inasmuch as it does not state the total whole body exposure to occupational personnel for the proposed licensed life of the Morris facility.
Rather than answer interrogatory C3-3(a), Intervenor only refers to the "HHB Report". With respect to interrogatory C3-3(b),
Intervenor states that the interrogatory is beyond the scope of discovery in that " families" is not relevant or material to Contention 3(a). However, Contention 3 states that the CSAR underestimates or does not state fully the projected effects on the health of personnel and their families from exposure to radiation for the reasons listed in 3(a) (e). Thus, Intervenor's denial, in its objection, of the relevance of " families" to the contention is contrary to the plain language of the contention itself.
Intervenor's answers are unresponsive and evasive.
Accordingly, Intervenor should be required to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to interrogatory C3-3(a) and (b).
Interrogatory C3-4 and C3-5 C3-4.
As to Contention 3(b):
(a) describe the " expected genetic effects on personnel" (referred to in Contention 3(b)) caused by whole body occupational exposures and state the basis for your assertion' that suen genetic effects are expected; (b) describe the " expected genetic effects...
to the general population" (referred to in Contention 3(b))
caused by whole body occupational exposures and state the basis for your assertion that such genetic effects are expected.
C3-5.
As to Co'ntention 3(c):
(a) provide the basis for your assertion that "other tanks and pipes" have not been considered in the evaluation of occupational exposure; (b) specifically identify and describe the "other tanks and pipes" which you assert should be included as sources of occupational expusures, state the basis for your assertion that such tanks and pipes constitute sources of radiation and state the basis for your assertion that occupational personnel will be exposed to radiation from such "other tanks and pipes;"
(c) describe the manner in which radiation exposures of occu-pational personnel from "other tanks and pipes" can affect the health of the families of such personnel and provide the basis for your response in this regard.
Responses to Interrogatories C3-4 and C3-5
'C3-4.
(a) See MHB Report.
(b) See MHB Report.
C3-5.
(a) See MHB Report.
(b) See MHB Report.
(c) See MHB Report.
Interrogatories C3-4 and C3-5 are directed to Intervenor's Contentions 3(b) and3(c).
In Contention 3(b) Intervenor asserts that CSAR does not project expected genetic effects on personnel or to the general population caused by whole body occupation [ sic] exposures.
Contention 3(c) asserts that the CSAR includes only irradiated fuel and contaminated basin water as radiation sources and that other tanks and pipes should be included as sources of occupational exposures.
Rather than attempt to provide any of the infonnation sought by the Staff in its interrogatories, Intervenor has once again only referred to "the MHB Report". As previously stated, Intervenor's vague reference to that report does not provide a full and responsive answer to these interrogatories. Accordingly, Intervenor should be ordered to provide complete, direct and responsive answers to interrogatories C3-4 and C3-5.
Interrogatory C3-6 C3-6.
As to Contention 3(d):
(a) def;ne the term " compaction" as it is, used in Conten-tion 3(d);
(b) provide the specific basis for the assertion that fuel disassembly, dry storage'or compaction Lre projected for the near future at GE Morris; (c) -indicate the levels of " additional radiation exposure to occupational personnel" that you assert will result from "all anticipated activities at the facility" and state the basis for your assertion Sat such levels of. exposure will occur; (d) describe the manner in which the additional radiation exposure to occupational listed in Contention 3',d) personnel from the activities can affect the health of the families of such personnel and provide the basis for your response in this regard, r
Response to Interrogatory C3-6 C3-6.
(a)
" Compaction" means methods of increasing fuel storage by replacing present racks with new racks which allow for
. additional numbers of assemblies to be stored by decreas-ing the amount of space between assemblies.
(b) Numerous documents support this all of which are available for inspection. -Illinois relies principally on the follow-ing:
1.
Deposition of Michael J. Lawrence taken January 21, 1980 in the cause of People v. Department of Energy, No.
79-C-1427 (N.D. Ill.).
2.
Deposition of Sheldon Meyers taken December 12, 1979 in.the same cause.
3.
Deposition of Bertram Wolfe taken December 12, 19'9 in the same cause.
4.
Response to Request for Admission by Department of Energy filed in the same cause on March 10, 1980.
5.
" Alternatives for DOE Storage of Spent fuel at Morris Operation" NEDC-24641 dated April 1979.
(c) Exact levels are unknown since they depend on the type of changed operation, amount of additional fuel etc.
(d)
Illinois objects on the ground that this interrogatory is beyond the scope of discovery in that " families" is not relevant or material to Contention 3(d).-
Interrogatory C3-6 is directed to Contention 3(d), in which Illinois alleges that the CSAR does not " account for. additional radiation exposure to occu-pational personnel from all anticipated activities at the facility (i.e.,
fuel disassembly, dry storage or compaction all of which are projected for the near ; future at Morris)". With respect to interrogatory C3-6(b)
Illinois' response indicates that there are documents other than those listed that
. provide the bases for the assertion that fuel disassembly, dry storage or A
e=
T'1
. l compaction was projected for the near future at GE Morris.
In responding to interrogatory C3-6(b), iiiinois should list all such documents that provide the bases for its assertion.
Concerning interrogato'ry C3-6(d), Illinois' answer is totally evasive.
Contention 3 clearly alleges that the CSAR underestimates or does not state fully the projected effects on the health of personnel and their families because of the reasons enumerated in 3(a)-(e).
It is therefore reasonable for the Staff to request, as it does in interrogatory C3-6(d), that Illinois describe the manner in which the additional radiatic;e expusure to occu-pational personnel from the activities listed in Contention 3(d) can affect the health of families of such personnel and to provide the basis for its res ponse.
In these circumstances, Illinois cannot be heard to object to this interrogatory on the ground that " families are not relevant or material" toContention3(d). Accordingly, Illinois should be required to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to interrogatory C3-6(d).
Interrogatory C3-7 C3-7.
'As to Contention 3(e):
(a) define what is meant by " effective radiation monitoring" as that phrase is used in Contention 3(e);
(b) state the basis for your assertion in Contention 3(e)(1) that there are no devices to measure radioactive materials in the air within the facility; (c). describe the type, number and location of monitoring devices which you, believe would provide effective radiation monitoring of the air within the facility and state the basis for your response;
-(d) state the basis for your assertion in Contention 3(e)(fi) that there is no routine procedure to measure Kr-85 in the air within the facility; (e) describe the proce' ure that you believe would be ade-d quate to routinely measure Kr-85 in the air within the facility and provide the basis for your response.
Response to Interrogatory C3-7 C3-7.
(a)
See MHB Report.
(b) See MHB Report.
(c) See objection to Cl-7.
(d) See. MHB Report, General Electric document entitled
" Status of Existing License" dated February 21, 1979.
(e) See objection to Cl-7.
Interrogatory C3-7 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 3(e) in which it is asserted that the CSAR does not address the absence of effective radiation monitoring of the air within the facility resulting from "(1) No devices to measure radioactive materials in the air" and "(ii) No. routine procedure to measure Kr 85."
Illinois' responds to interrogatories C3-7(a), (b), and (d) by referring to the MHB Report and to a General Electric document. This vague reference to these documents does not provide a full, direct and complete response.
Illinois responds to interrogatories C3-7(c) and (e) by referring to its objection to interrogatory Cl-7.
Once again, these inter-rogatories seeks information and views solely within Illinois' knowledge and Illinos' objection is without merit. Accordingly, Illinois should be ordered to prc, vide full, direct and responsive answers to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory C4-1 C4-1.
As to Contention 4(a):
(a) state the basis for you'r assertion that costs have not been adjusted for inflation; (b) define the " projected time for decon9:aination" referred to in Contention 4(a) and state the basis for your response; (c) describe the method you, would consider to be adequate to properly adjust for inflation ii. Jetemining costs at the projected time of decontamination and state the basis for your position in this regard; (d) apart from the alleged failure to account for in-flation, do you contend that costs have been improperly or inadequately estimated in other respects? If so, specifically describe such other inadequacies in cost estimation, state the bases fo.r your response, and describe what you, believe to be necessary for a proper and adequate detennination of costs for decon-tamination and decommissioning.
Response to Interrogatory C4-1 C4-1.
(a) The CSAR does not so indicate.
(b) The term means both the beginning date and time required to complete decontamination.
(c) See objection to Cl-7.
(d) The contention speaks for itself.
As to the last clause of this interrogatory (beginning "and describe what..." [ sic] sea objection to Cl-7.
Interrogatory C4-1 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 4(a) in which it is asserted that the Decommissioning Plan proposed in the CASR is inadequate because decommissioning " costs have not been adjusted for inflation for the projected time of. decontamination." Since Intervenor affirmatively asserts that the costs of decommissioning have not been properly adjusted for inflation, the Staff. assumed that Intervenor had at least some minimal basis for such an
9 assertion and, in interrogatory C4-1(c) sought to detemine what method Intervenor would consider to be adequate to properly adjust for inflation in detemining costs at the projected time of decontamination. Similarly, in interrogatory Cl-4(d), the Staff _ sought to detemine whether Intervenor contends that there are any other inadequacies in cost estimation, the bases wr its response, and what Intervenor believes to be nectssary for a proper and adequate detemination of costs for decontamination and decommissigning.
Intervenor's responds to both interrogatories by referring to its objection to interrogatory Cl-7.
The essence of that objection is that the question requests facts beyond the knowledge of Illinois and is the burden of Applicant.
These responses are evasive and do not answer the questions posed by the interrogatories. Accordingly, Intervenor should be directed to provide full, direct and responsive answers to interrogatories C4-1(c) and (d).
Interrogatory C4-3
- C4-3.
As to Contention 4(c);
(a) define "immediate and/or pemanent abandonment of the Morris site" as that phrase is used in Contention 4(c);
(b) describe the " emergency, accident or other unforeseen event" that you contemplate as making '.mmediate and/or pemanent abandonment of the Morris site necessary and state the basis for your assertions that such events could occur at GE Morris and would require immediate and/or permanent abandonment of the site; (d)
[ sic] how would an emergency, accident or event necessitating the abandonment of the Morris site l
affect the deemmissioning of the GE Horris facility?
Describe in detail the defects in the existing decom-missioning plan (Appendix A.7 of the CSAR) which lead you to believe the plan is inadequate in the event of an emergency, accident or event requiring abandonment of the site.
Response to Interrogatory C4-3 C4-3.
(a) The words are used in their common dictionary meanings.
(b) See MHB Report.
(d)
[ sic] See MHB Report.
Interrogatory C4-3 seeks infomation on Intervenor's allegations in Conten-tion 4(c) that the Decommisr. toning Plan proposed in the CSAR is inadequate because there is no contingency plan to provide decommissioning of the Morris facility, shculd an emergency, accident or other unforeseen event necessitate immediate and/or pemanent abandonment of the fiorris site.
Rather than providing the information sought and answering questions posed in interrogatories (b) and (d), Intervenor merely refers to the "l1HB Report".
Intervenor's answers are evasive and totally nonresponsive. Accordingly, Intervenor should be ordered to provide full, direct and responsive answers tointerrogatoriesC4-3(b)and(d).
t Interrogatory C4-4 C4-4.
As to Contention 4(d);
(a) state the basis -for your assertion in Contention 4(d)(i) that the Licensee may be unable to dispose of LAW vault materials; (b) state the basis for your assertion in Contention 4(d)(ii) that it may not be possible to remove residual
/
contamination from waste vaults or other stationary parts of the facility; (c) assuming' that residual contamination remains on waste vaults or other stationary parts of the facility, do you believe that it is impossible to preclude dispersal of such contamination or to preclude exposure of members of the public to such contamination? If so, state the basis for your belief; (d) state the basis for your assertion in Contention 4(d)(iii) that ground water contamination could occur and that such contamination would require maintenance to prevent leaching offsite.
State the basis for your assertion that such maintenance must be perpetual in nature; (e) state the basis for your assertion on Contention 4(d)(iv) that low-level disposal facilities for the dismantled GE Morris facility and wastes may be unavailable.
Response to Interrogatory C4-4 C4-4.
(a) See MHB Report.
(b) See MHB Report.
(c) See MHB Report.
(d) See MHB Report.
(e) See MHB Report.
Interrogatory C4-4 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 4(d), in which it is claimed that the Decommissioning Plan proposed in the CSAR is inadequate because there is no consideration of possible perpetual care and maintenance due to incomplete decontamination and decommissioning.
Intervenor's vegue reference to."the MHB Report", without even providing the relevant chapter headings, page numbers or section numbers, is evasive and fails to provide
4.
the infonnation which the Staff seeks in interrogatories C4-4(a)-(e).
Accordingly, Intervenor should be directed to provide full, direct and responsive answers to these interrogatories.
Interrogatory C5-1 C5-1.
As to Contention 5(a), describe the accident or emergency that you contend would require the removal of spent fuel from the. Morris spent fuel pool, provide the basis for your assertion.that such an event could occur at the facility, and provide the basis for your asssertion that such an ' event would necessitate removal of spent fuel from the Morris spent fuel pool.
F.esponse to Interrogatory C5-1 C5-1.
See MHB Report.
Interrogatory C5-1 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 5(a), in which Intervenor alleges that the Emergency Plan in the CSAR is inadequate in that it does not specify which emergency procedures will be utilized to unload spent fuel and to transport and/or store irradiated fuel in the event that an emergency should necessitate transfer of the spent fuel from the Morris spent fuel pool.
Rather than provide the infonnation sought by the Staff in interrogatory C5-1, Intervenor once again merely makes a vague reference to "the MHB Report". As the Staff has previously stated, such a response is not adequate and does not provide the information sought. Accordingly, Intervenor should be ordered to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to interrogatory C5-1.
Interrogatory C5-3 C5-3.
As to Contention 5(c), describe in detail the tests which you believe should be performed to demonstrate the adequacy of the existing emergency plan.
Response to C5-3 C5-3.
See objection to Cl-7.
Interrogatory C5-3 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 5(c), in which it is claimed that the Emergency Plan in the CSAR is inadequate because there is no reference to tests or other means by which it can be detemined that existing emergency plans are adequate.
Since Intervenor has asserted that the infomation in the emergency plan is insufficient, interrogatory C5-3 seeks to determine what tests Intervenor believes to be necessary and why.
Intervenor does not provide this infomation but, instead, by referring to a previous answer to another interrogatory, states that the interrogatory requests facts beyond the knowledge of Intervenor, is beyond the scope of discovery and is the burden of Applicant, not Intervenor.
Intervenor's answer is argumenta,1ve, evasive and wholly nonresponsive.
Intervenor itself has alleged that the CSAR is inadequate because there is no reference to tests or other means of demonstrating the adequacy of emergency planning.
Having made such allegations, Intervenor certainly must have a position on what tests or other means 3 believes would be sufficient to demonstrate the adequacy of emergency planning. While the Applicant may have the burden of demonstrating the adequacy of its emergency planning, it is Intervenor's obligation to set forth its position as requested by this interrogatory.
It is not the burden of Applicant to provide infomation in response to Staff interrogatories propounded to Intervenor. Accordingly, Intervenor should be
. directed to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to interrogatory C5-3.
Interrogatory C7-1 Do you contend that the proposed renewal of the GE Morris C 7-1.
. license involves a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment? If so, describe in detail the environmental impacts you assert will occur from this action and provide the basis for your assertion that such impacts will result.
If not, what is the basis for your assertion that an environmental impact statement must be prepared?
Response to Interrogatory C7-1 C 7-1.
Yes.
See MHB Report and the answers given above.
Interrogatory C7-1 is directed to Intervenor's Contention 7, in which it is claimed that the NRC has an obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to issue an environmental impact statement which will account for environnental impact of nomal operation of the Morris facility.
Intervenor's response to the second part of this interrogatory, referral to the "MHB Report" and " answers given above", completely fails to respond to the Staff's request that Intervenor describe in detail the environmental impacts which Intervenor asserts will occur from this 6ction. Accordingly, Intervenor should be directed to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to this part of interrogatory C7-1.
Interrogatory C7-2 C 7-2.
An envirorsnental impact appraisal (EIA) on the proposed licensing action was prepared and issued (NUREG-0695) in June, 1980.
(a) Do you believe that that EIA adequately evaluated all of the potential environmental effects of the proposed licensing action?
(b)
If the answer to C7-2(a) is "no," describe in detail those environmental effects which were not adequately evaluated, provide the basis for your view that they were not adequately evaluated, and describe the addi-tional evaluation that you believe to be necessary.
(c) Do you agree with the conclusion reached in the EIA that the proposed licensing action will not result in significant environmental impacts?,
(d)
If the answer to C7-2(c) is "yes", are you willing to withdraw Contention 7 in which you assert that an environmental impact statement is required? If not, why not?
Response to Interrogatory C7-2 C 7-2.
-(a)
Illinois is unable to respond to this interrogatory because it has been unable to adequately study NUREG-0695 as of this date.
(b) See response to (a) above.
(c) No.
(d)
.40 response required.
This interrogatory'is related to Contention 7 and seeks infonnation from Illinois regarding its evaluation of the NRC Staff's Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) on the proposed licensing action, which was prepared and issued (NUREG-0695) in June 1980.
Since almost eight weeks elapsed between the date the EIA was issued (June 5,1980) and the date responses to inter-rogatories were due (August 4,1980), the Staff believes Illinois has had l
l
4 adequate time to be able to answer the Staff's interrogatories based on the EIA. This is particularly so in view of the fact that Illinois was able to state, without qualification, that it does not agrae with the conclusion of the EIA that the proposed action will not result in significant environ-mental impacts (response tc interrogatory C7-2(c)).
Accordingly, Illinois should be directed to provide a full, direct and responsive answer to inter-rogatory C7-2.
IV.
RELIEF SOUGHT For the reasons set forth above, the Staff respectfully requests an order compelling Intervenor to provide full, direct and responsive answers to interrogatories G-4, G-5, Cl-2, Cl-3, Cl-4, Cl-6, Cl-7, Cl-9, C1-10, Cl-11, Cl-12, C2-1, C2-3, C3-2, C3-3, C3-4, C3-5, C3-6(b) and (d), C3-7, C4-1(c) and (d), C4-3(b) and (d), C4-4, C5-1, C5-3, C7-1, and C7-2.
Respectfully submitted, fl4 Ul+n % WE Marjorie Ulman Rothschild Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of August,1980
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 70-1308
' GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (Renewal of SNM-1265)
)
(GE Morris Operation Spent Fuel
)
Storage Facility)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S MOTIO:1 TO COMPEL RESPONSIVt. ANSWERS TO CERTAIN STAFF INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENOR STATE OF ILLIN0IS OF JULY 15, 1980' 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 19th day of August,1980:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Edward Firestone, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Legal Operation 3320 Estelle Terrace General Electric Company Wheaton, MD 20906 175 Curtner Avenue Mail Code 822 Dr.~ Linda W. Little San Jose, CA 95125 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, NC 27612 Mr. Everett Jay Quigley R.R. l Box 378 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Kankakee, IL 60901 305 East Hamilton Avenue State College, PA 16801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dean Hansell, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Suite 2315 Panel (5)
Chicago, IL 60601 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Ronald Szwajkowski, Esq.
Matthew A. Rooney, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section (7)*
Mayer, Brown & Platt Office of the Secretary 231 South ! 'Salle Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, !L '60604 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Essex, IL 60935 hw nu Uw.w. 5%: s ts ' '
Marjorie Ulman Rothschild
. Counsel for NRC Staff
._