ML19347D780
| ML19347D780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1981 |
| From: | Edgar G GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103270587 | |
| Download: ML19347D780 (3) | |
Text
.r4
/
g z.u -
d
... ~
~
UNITED ST.'.TES OF AMERICA
.~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- l
()v)
V In the liatter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-70 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
Operating License (Vallecitos Nuclear Center -
)
No. TR-1 General Electric Test Reactor)
)
(Show Cause)
P)f 1$
GE OBJECTION TO INTERVENORS' INTERROGATORIES TO LICENSEE AND MOTION I
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 55 2.740b and 2.740(c), General Electric Company (GE), hereby objects to certain of the Inter-venors' Interrogatories To Licensee, dated March 16, 1981, and moves for a Protective Order that the discovery not be had.
The following grounds support GE's objection and motion:
1.
The interrogatories in question provide:
5.
Does GE own any liability insurance to pay for radioactive contamination of public and private property and land that would be a consequence of an earthquake induced accident at the GETR site?
t 6.
Is the GETR covered by the Price Anderson Act?
Explain how that Act would benefit the four million citizens who would be the potential victims of an earthquake induced accident at the GETR.
How much would each of those four million Bay Area citizens be able to recy,
their losses after they evacuate?
/
l'
[5.]y%
r3 N 810827 0 K D MAR 2 61981&p pse6 y "M%**
9 6*ff s
t
~,
2.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's discovery rules, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide that all discovery requests must relate to the subject matter involved in the proceeding or be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
10 C.F.R. 4 2.740.
Intervenors' interrogatories 5 & 6 seek information which does not relate to the subject matter of this Show Cause proceeding and are not calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
3.
The subject matter of this proceeding is controlled by the Show Cause Order of October 24, 1977.
That order defines the issues in this proceeding as:
- 1) what the proper geologies and seismic design bases should be, and 2) whether GETR systems, etc. necessary to achieve and maintain safe shutdown will remain functional in light of.the design bases.
The scope of this Show Cause proceeding is to be narrowly con-strued and discovery must be confined to the issues enumerated in the Show Cause Order.
See Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill 1 & 2), CLI-8-10, 11 N.R.C. 438 (March 13, 1980); Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach 1), Docket No. 50-266 (Unpublished, May 12, 1980); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas 1 & 2), CLI-80-32, 12 N.R.C. 281 1/
(September 22, 1980).-
These decisions reflect the Commis-sion's policy to confine the scope of enforcement proceedings 1/
Courts also sustain objections to. interrogatories which exceed the scope of discovery established in a court order.
See Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Comoany, 64 F.2d 559 TE7D. Pa. 1974).
~
> to the issues enumerated by the Director in order to prevent duplicative and wasteful inquiries.
~
4.
The Board has ruled that accident consequences do not fall within the scope of this Show Cause proceeding.
Memorandum and Order, Docket No. 50-70SC, at 7 (February 3, 1981).
The interrogatories seek information regarding the consequences of accident, which is clearly beyond the scope of this proceeding.
See Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim 2), LBP-75-42, 2 N.R.C. 159 (July 30, 1975); Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell), LBP-77-13, 5 N.R.C. 489 (February 24, 1977); Reddick v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 243 (S.D. Ga. 1968).
In addition, the interrogatories are not even reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence because their area of inquiry far exceeds the scope of this proceeding, Therefore, the interrogatories are objectionabl'e and GE is entitled to a protective order that this discovery not.be had.
See Apel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D.
651 (D.R.I.' 1976).
For the foregoing reasons, GE respectfully requests that its objection to intervenors' interrogatories be sustained and its Motion for a Protective Order be granted.
Respectfully submitted, eor dg Attorney for eneral Electric Company OF COUNSEL:
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
_(202) 872-5121
~
DATED:
March 25, 1981