ML19344B181
| ML19344B181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001308 |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1980 |
| From: | Szwajkowski R GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., MAYER, BROWN & PLATT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008250710 | |
| Download: ML19344B181 (16) | |
Text
Su 9
sAugust 19, 198_
(V
,OCke 4
AUO 2 f $80 >
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Otticeofg,3 Dxkenni & S$?
Bunch IN THE MATTER OF GENERAL
)
ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
)
)
Docket No. 70-1308 Consideration of Renewal of
)
Material License No. SNM-1265
)
Issued to G.E. Morris Operation )
Fuel Storage Installation
)
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AGAINST THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Now comes General Electric Company (" General Electric")
and respectfully requests this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to enter an order, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(f),
compelling discovery against Intervenor the State of Illinois.
In support of this Motion, General Electric states as follows:
1.
By its order of June 23, 1980, this Board directed that all requests for discovery be served upon parties by
~
July 15, 1980.
Pursuant to that Order, General Electric on July 15, 1980, served Intervenor the State of Illinois with a set of thirty-two Interrogatories.
2.
Pursuant to the same order, all parties were directed to object or answer all discovery requests on or l
before August 4, 1980.
l l
3.
On August 4, 1980, Intervenor the State of Illinois made its answers to General Electric's Interrogatories, t
I certain of which answers were evasive, incomplete, unresponsive, vague and otherwise objectienable.
l l
8ooseso 7/o L
4.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740 (f) (1), evasive and imcomplete answers are treated as failures to respond, and are subject to a motion to compel discovery.
5.
The Interrogatories to which objectionable answers were made, the objectionable answers and the particular grounds for objection are set forth below.
GENERAL OBJECTION General Electric objects, in general, to the response of Illinois on the ground that the answers are substantially based upon a document which is almost totally irrelevant to this proceeding.
That document, the MHB Report, which is actually entitled " Technical Review of Risk Due to Expansion of The Morris Operation Spent Fuel Storage", is dated February, 1979, but was first received by General Electric on August 13, 1980.
As the title of the report indicates it relates pri-marily to an expansion of the Norris Operation, not to the j
presently existing pool.
General Electric has reviewed the' l
entire MHB Report and believes that it contains almost no information relevant to the contentions admitted in this pro-ceeding.
By separate cover today, General Electric is providing each Board membr.r with a copy of the report to facilitate ruling upon this motion to compel.
To the extent possible, in its objection to each interrogatory response which refers to i
the MHB Report, General Electric has identified any section of l
the report which General Electric believes the Board should examine to satisfy itself that the interrogatory has not been 1
properly answered.
I
I SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS General Electric objects to the responses to the following interrogatories.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO.s2 For each person retained or specifically employed as an expert with regard to this license renewal application or hearing, about whom no decision has been made as to whether such expert will be called, state the following:
a)
Name and Address; b)
His particular field of expertise; c)
A summary of his qualifications within the field; and d).
Whether such expert has submitted or transmitted any reports, analyses, or opinions in any form.
If so, state the dates and addresses of all reports, l
analyses or opinions.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE a)
MHB Technical Associates 366 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA.
94306 b)
Illinois does not have this information at present l
but will provide it within two weeks.
c)
See response to (b) above.
l d)
See MHB Report.
OBJECTION General Electric objects to the responses to subparagraphs 1
(b) and (c) because, as of the date of this motion, Illinois I
has not provided the requested information.
Accordingly, Illinois has failed to qualify MHB Technical Associates or any l L
l l
of its members as having the requisite expertise concerning any matter relevant to the contentions admitted in this proceeding.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 4 With reference to Contention 1(a), describe in technical detail the accident postulated to occur at DNPS, giving the circumstances thereof, and state with particularity the facts and data upon which such postulate is based.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE Any incident causing release of radiation into the environment in excess of the limits set out in the Regulations and in Dresden's license.
OBJECTION The response merely paraphrases Contention 1(a) without describing the alleged accident or circumstances requested by the Interrogatory.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy of the CSAR claimed in Con-tention 1.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 5 With reference to Contention 1(a), describe in technical i
detail the accident postulated to occur at the Morris Operation i
that would result in a release of radioactive material off-site based on fuel storage in terms of the conditions specified in the CSAR, NEDO-21326C, Chapter 10, and state the facts upon which such contention is based.
-4
ILLINOIS RESPONSE Any incident ::ausing release of radiation into the i
environment in excess of the limits set out in the Regulations and in Morris' license.
See also MHB Report.
OBJECTION The response merely paraphrases Contention 1(a) without describing the alleged accident or circumstances requested by the Interrogatory.
Moreover, General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report (see specifically S4.2.1) and determined that it contains no technical detail concerning any accident postulated at LP.e Morris Operation.and no discussion at all of the con-sequences of any simultaneous accidental radioactive releases from DNPS and the Morris Operation.
The response'is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy of the CSAR claimed in Contention 1.
GE?iERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 6 Define the phrase " risk and consequences", including sufficient detail for translation of the meaning of the phrase into engineering specifications, as used in subparagraph (b) i of Contention 1.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE
" Risks" means possibilities of harm or danger.
" Consequences" means results.
See MHB Report...
OBJECTION The response contains no detail for translation of
" risk and consequences" into engineering specifications.
General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report (see specifically S4.2) and determined that neither a ger.eral nor h detailed definition of " risk" or " consequences" is contained in the report.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to define the operative terms of the contention in a manner which places General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy in the CSAR claimed in Contention 1.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 7 With reference to Contention 1(b), state with particu-larity the manner in which the following accidents are postulated to occur at the Morris Operation, describing in technical detail the postulated consequences thereof, includ-ing the anticipated magnitude of the alleged release of radioactive elements, and state the facts upon which such postulations are based:
a.
An accident caused by a tornado-impelled missile; b.
An accident involving the loss of coolant, either alone or in conjunction with an accident causing a rift in the building. structure; c.
Accidents involving earthquakes; d.
Sabotage-related accidents not analyzed in NEDM-206S2; --, - _.
e.
Fire; f.
Flooding; g.
Acts of war; h.
Human error; and i.
Massive electrical power failure.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE (a) through (d).
See MEB Report.
(e) through (1).
Illinois objects on the grounds that these terms were not prope=ad by it and it has no knowledge as to what other parties mean by these terms.
BJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report (see specifically 553.2.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.10) and determined that the Report does not discuss in technical detail the alleged manner in which the postulated accidents contained in subparagraphs (a) through (d) inclusive of Interrogatory No. 7 could occur at the Morris Operation.
Moreover, the report does not discuss at all the magnitude of the alleged release of radioactive elements or the alleged consequences thereof.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to describe any accident, give any detail, or provide any facts as requested by the Interrogatory, and it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged i
inadequacy of the CSAR claimed in Contention 1.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. S State with partucularity the manner in which the CSAR does not adequately describe the " risks and consequences" of the accidents and occurrences listed as subparts (i) through (ix) inclusive of Contention 1(b)..__.- __. _
A ILLINOIS RESPONSE See response to interrogatory 7.
O_BJECTION This response is subject to the same objection as the response to Interrogatory No. 7.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 11 State with particularity the basis for the contention that the CSAR should be required to assess " risks and conse-quences of sabotage related events" as alleged in Contention 2.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE Sy its own terms that co_cention is limited to failure of General Electric to adequately address " advances in the technology of explosives."
Illinois' contention is based on the failure of NEDM-20682 to adequately address this issue and on the failure of General Electric to update that report.
See droposed State Contention 2.
See also MH3 Report.
OBJECTION j
The response merely paraphrases Contention 2.
General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report (see specifically 54.1.5) and determined that the Report contains no discussion at all of the advances on the technology of explosives.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provide the particular basis required by the Interrogatery, and it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy of the
- Physical Security Plan claimed in Contention 2.
_g.
i '.
4 GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY IIO. 15 State with particularity the reasons for the contention that the CSAR should state "the projected effects on health of personnel and their families from occupational exposure to radiation" as described in subparagraphs (a) through (e) inclusive of Contention 3.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE Illinois objects on the ground that it does not know what General Electric means by " reasons for the contention" and thus cannot answer this interrogatory.
OBJECTION The objection is transparently disingenous.
Illinois offers no substantive objection to disclosure of the basis of Contention 3 as requested by the Interrogatory.
GENERAL EIECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 16 State with particularity the facts upon which the contentions of subparagraphs (a) through (e) inclusive of Contention 3 are based.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE (a) through (e).
See MHB Report and General Electric document entitled " Status of Existing Licensing" dated February 21, 1979.
OBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report and determined that it contains no discussion of the information requested in subparagraphs (a), (b), (d) and (e) of Centention 3.
Mcreover, the report (see specifically SS3.2.5, 4.1.8, 4.1.9) contains no _ _
discussion of the alleged consequences of any alleged radiation exposure related to subject matter of subparagraph Tc) of Contention 3 and no discussion of the alleged effects of any such alleged exposure.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provide any facts or bases as required by the Interrogatory, and it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy of the CSAR claimed in Contention 3.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 18 State with particularity the facts upon which the contentions of subparagraphs (a) through (d) inclusive of Contention 4 are based.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE (a) through (d).
See MHB Report.
OBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MRB Report (see specifically S6.0) and determined that it contains no discussion of subparagraph,,
(a), (b) and (d) of Contention 4.
Moveover, the Report contains only vague speculation as to Contention 4(c) and no bases for that subparagraph of Contention 4.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provide any facts or bases as i
reg:esred by the Interrogatory, and fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy of the Decommissioning Plan claimed in Contention 4.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 19 State with particulari.ty the facts upon which the allegations of subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Contention 4 are based. I
ILLINOIS RESPONSE Answered in interrogatory 18.
I OBJECTION The response is subject to the same objection as the response of Interrogatory No. 18.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 20 Describe in detail the " accident or other unforeseen event" postulated in Contention 4(c), which would recuire abandonment of the Morris operation and state with particularity the facts upon which such postulate is based.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE See MHB Report.
OBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report (specifically 56.0) and determined th t it contains no discussion of the information requested by this interrogatory.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provide any facts or bases as required by the Interrogator;*, and it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy of the Decom-missioning Plan claimed in Contention 4.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 21 Define the phrase " incomplete decontamination", as used in subparagraph 'd) of Contention 4.
Include the technical criteria for defining that phrase.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE See MHB Report., _
OBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report (specifically 56.0) and determined that it contains no discussion of the information requested by this Interrogatory.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provide the definition and criteria rapested by the Interrogatory.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 22 State with particularity the facts upon which the allegation of Contention 4(d) that incomplete decontamination or decommissioning may result from the contingencies described in subparagraphs (i) through (iv) inclusive is based.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE See MHB Report.
GBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report (specifically S6.0) and determined that it contains no discussion of the information requested by this Interrogatory.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provide any facts or bases as rannstad by the Interrogatory, and it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy of the Decommissioning Plan claimed in Contentien 4.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 21 With reference to Centention 5, state the regulatory basis, including the specific regulation or statute relied upon, which require that (1) the Emergency Plan specify procedures to unload the spent fuel pool and to transport
and/or store the irradiated fuel in the event of an emergency; (2) the CSAR contain a plan for emergency transportation of irradiated fuel; and (3) the license renewal application documentation contain adequate test programs or other means to determine if the emergency plan is adequato.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE See MHB Report.
OBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report and determined that it contains no discussion of information requested in this Interrogatory.
The response is,-accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provide the regulatory basis required by the Interrogatory, and it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy in the Emergency Plan claimed in Contention 5.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO, 24 With reference to Contention 5, describe in detail the emergency which would necessitate the unloading of the spent fuel pool and/or the transportation and/or storage of irradiated fuel.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE See MHB Report.
OBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report and determined that it contains no discussion of information requested in this Interrogatory.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provi : the detailed description required by the Interrogatory, and it fails to place General Electric on notice of the alleged inadequacy in the Emergency Plan claimed in Contention 5..
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 26 With reference to Contention 5, state with particularity i
under what circumstances emergency transportation of spent fuel would be required.
ILLINOIS RESPONSE See MHB Report.
OBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the MHB Report and determined that it contains no discussion of information requested in this Interrogatory.
The response is, accordingly, evasive and incom-plete in that it fails to provide the particular circumstances requested'b the Interrogatory and it fails to place General Electric f
on notice of the alleged inadequacy of the Emergency Plan claimed in Contention 5.
GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERROGATORY NO. 31 With reference to Contention 7, identify with particu-larity al1 significant environmental impacts of normal operations of the Morris Operation and state the factual basis for each.
i ILLINOIS RESPONSE Illinois objects on the grcund that-this interrogatory is over broad and unduly burdenseme.
Without waiving this t
cbjection Illinois refers General Electric to:
l l
l l
a.
MHB Report b.
Environmental Impact Appraisal NUREG-0695 June 1980 c.
Generic Environmental Inpact Statement NUREG-0571 August 1979.
c.
" Spent Fuel Receipt and Sabotage at the Morris Operation" NEDG-21889 June 1978.
e.
" Commentary on Spent Fuel Storage at Morris Operation" NUREG/CR-0956 July 1979.
OBJECTION General Electric has reviewed the referenced documents and determined that they contain no information regarding specific environmental impacts as requested by this Interrogatory.
The response, to the extent it is a response, is accordingly evasive and incomplete in that it fails to provide any alleged significant environmental impacts requested by the Interrogatory.
'Jo the extent t'he response is an objection, the objection is groundless in that, if Illinois cannot disclose the basis of its contention without " undue burden','" Illinois must either undertake the burden or abandon the contention.
Accordingly, General Electric requests that this Board enter an order requiring Intervenor Illinois to answer properly the interrogatories which are the subject matter of this motion by no later than August 26, 1980.
OF COUNSEL:
Respectfully submitted, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY MAYER, BROWN & PLATT
/.</ /
.?
,/
231 South LaSalle Street By:
[ ' M /' W
' jf'J I Chicago, Illinois 60604 Ronald W. Szwa]kcwsku (312) 782-0600 Matthew A. Rooney Its Attorneys
?
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 70-1308 Consideration of Renewal of
)
Materials License No. SNW-1265)
Issued to GE Morris Operation )
Fuel Storage Installation
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he served a copy of GENERAL ELECTRIC'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AGAINST THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, in the above-captioned proceeding on the following persons by causing the said copies to be deposited in the United States mail at 231 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, in plainly addressed and sealed envelopes with proper first class postage attached before 5:00 P.M. on August 19, 1980:
Andrew C. Go-dhope, Esq., Chairman Susan N. Sekuler, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board George William Wolff, Esq.
3320 Estelle Terrace Office of the Attorney General Wheaton, Maryland 20906 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Dr. Linda W.
Little Chicago, Illinois 60601 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5000 Hermitage Drive Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 United States Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Dr. Forrest J. Remick Washington, D.C.
20555 Atc=ic Safety and Licensing Scard 305 East Hamilton Avenue At==ic Safety and Licensing State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Soard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory At==ic Swtety and Licensing Appeal Cc= mission Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission Washingten, D.C.
2C555 Decketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Bridge: L. Rere=
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Essex, Illinois Conmission Washingten, D.C.
20555 Everett J. Quigley
,i a
=c x a-, e-t a
,,,, 4,,. g, / -, g[, ;
Rankakee, I111ncis 50901 7
u-l,,, e j,
g
< _. : uit Matthew A.
Rocney j
-.