ML19350B754
| ML19350B754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco, Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1981 |
| From: | Farnell A CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8103230632 | |
| Download: ML19350B754 (8) | |
Text
l gf/L b Y
TgD CORRESPONDENCB
'l CCC%gED h
WGC 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0
MAR 16 W81 > r4, 8
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa Cl 3
Smch G
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OL
)
50-330-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-329-OM
)
50-33 g
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
f
\\\\,
/IARegI CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
{
%fg
%sa MOTION TO COMPEL NRC STAFF TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES 13 THROUGH 16
,:4 -
9 Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.740 (f) Consumers Fower C yn
(" Consumers Power"), by its attorneys, moves for an order compelling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff ("NRC Staff")
to answer Interrogatories 13 through 16.
l
===1.
Background===
On November 12, 1980, Consumers Power filed its first and only set of interrogatories.
During the Prehearing Conference the NRC agreed to answer the interrogatories by February 25th.
Part of the Staff's " answer" was to object to interrogatories 13 through 16.
2.
The Interrogatories Objected To The NRC Staff objected to the following interrogatories:
13.
State with particularity each acceptance criteria which Consumers Power Company had up until December 6, 1979 provided to the Staff.
h5%
fs *'j s v> a a s o w
14.
As of December 6, 1979 with regard to each criteria identified in your answer to interrogatory 13 state whether Consumers had submitted sufficient information to justify each acceptance criteria.
If Consumers had not submitted sufficient informatien, state with particularity which information Consumers had failed to supply.
15.
Excluding the acceptance criteria identified in response to interrogatory 13, state with particularity each acceptance criteria which Consumers has to date provided to the Staf f.
16.
With regard to each criteria identified in your answer to interrogatory 15 state whether Consumers has submitted sufficient information to justify each acceptance criteria.
If Consumers has not submitted sufficient information, state with particularity which information Consumers has f ailed to supply.
These interrogatories call for the NRC cc=pilation of acceptance criteria submitted by Consumers Pcwer and the NRC Staff's position and analysis of whether these criteria were sufficiently justified.
3.
The NRC Staff's Objections to the Interrocatories With its usual clarity the Staff has set forth its
" reasons" for its objections.
As best as we can decipher the grounds are:
l A.
The NRC Staff never " tabulated" any acceptance l
I criteria found in Consumers Power's submittals.
{
B.
If the NRC Staff was " forced" to " sort through voluminous' documents provided by Consumers Power for the purpose l
of tabulating any acceptance criteria that may be found therein..."
l l
it would' be' "an inappropriate burden on the Staff."
NRC Staff answers to other interrogatories contain C.
the information requested by the objected to interrogatories. b
4.
Consumers Power's Arguments in Support of its Motion To Compel A.
Background
One of the grounds on which the December 6, 1979 Order (" Order") was based was that Consumers Power, prior to December 6,1979, had failed to provide the Staff with acceptance criteria.
The Order stated that:
Several of the Staff's requests were directed to the determination and justification of acceptance criteria to be applied to various remedial measures taken and proposed by the licensee....
The informaticn provided by the licensee fails to provide such criteria.
1 The issue of acceptance criteria, their determination and justification, is therefore crucial to the hearing and to Consumers Power's defense.
B.
Contrary to its Stated Position The NRC Staff Must Have " Tabulated" Consumers Power's Acceptance Criteria The Order.on its face appears to place the burden on Consumers Power to have submitted acceptance criteria to the NRC.
The NRC Staff's response to Interrogatory 1 states "the standards (acceptance criterial to be used by the licensee to make its judgment or decision that proposed remedial measures are acceptable was sought by the NRC for its review."
This makes it clear that the NRC expected Consumers Power-to submit acceptance criteria and then the Staff would review the acceptance criteria and the information submitted with it for purposes of " determination and justifica-tion" of the acceptance criteria.. - - - -.
Therefore, the Order is really stating that either no acceptance criteria were submitted or that if such criteria were submitted they were determined not to bo sufficiently justified.
Hence if the Order is in fact based on the grounds set forth in the order then the NRC Staff must have tabulated any acceptance criteria provided by Consumers 1/
Power.
Therefore, the information responsive to interrogatories 13 and 14 must have been in existence as of December 6, 1979.
As to interrogatories 15 and 16, dealing with I'
December 10, 1979 to date, the NRC Staff apparently is
[
taking the position that Consumers Power has still not provided all the acceptance criteria required or not justified i
them to the NRC Staf f's satisfaction.
The NRC Staff must also have compiled the requeated information and data in order to support that position.
C.
If the NRC Staff has not " tabulated" Consumers j
l Power's Acceptance Criteria then it has an Obligation to do So Now As demonstrated in the previous section the NRC Staff should have done such a compilation in order to support the statements found in the Order.
If it has not yet done so j
then it should.do so now because such a compilation is needed in order for it to answer a_ portion of interrogatories 14 and 16, i.e. to determine "if consumers had submitted 1/
If the NRC feels that Consumers Power has not provided ng acceptance criteria it should so state.
~ __
e sufficient information to justify each acceptance criteria."
It is obvious that a compilation of the acceptance criteria is necessary in order to make such a determination.
D.
The Information Requested in Interrogatories 13 Through 16 has not been Provided by Answers to other Consumers Power Interrogatories A review of the NRC Staff's answers to Consumers Power's interrogatories demonstrates that the requested information has not been provided in response to other interrogatories.
Indeed the NRC does not cite any portion of any interrogatory answer in support of its apparent position that the information has been provided.
The NRC Staff's apparent position that the information has already been provided in answers to other interrogatories is extremely interesting.
In the first place it seems a bit inconsistent to state on one hand that no compilation of acceptance criteria has been done and then state that information which is based on such a compilation has already been provided to Consumers Power.
If a compilation has not been done, then it follows that the information which is based on it is not in existence.
Conclusion The foregoing demonstrates that the motion compelling the NRC Staff to answer interrogatories 13 through 16 should
- 2. =...-.. - -.... -
1 i
be granted.
Respectfully submitted Y.. h> -A i Alan S. Farnell Attorney for Consumers Power Company ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312/558-7500 i i i [ I l l-, f ', emf c y-e -%.+ r .,y-w ..,1-g-u r-- y-- - + *---
. =. UNITED STATES OF.^.MERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ) In the Matter of ) ) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OM ) 50-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) 50-329-OL ) 50-330-OL ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alan S. Farnell, hereby csrtify that a copy of Consumers Power Company's Motion to Compel NRC Staff to Answer Interrogatories 13 Through 16 was served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 12th day of March, 1981. k. l Alan S. Farnell i l l l i l l I
SERVICE LIST Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Steve Galdier, Esq. Attorney General of the 2120 Carter Avenue State of Michigan St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Stewart H. Freeman, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety & Licensing Appell Pn1 Gregory T. Taylor, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555 Environmental Protection Div. 720 Law Building Mr. C. R. Stephens Lansing, Michigan 48913 Chief, Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary Myron M. Cherry, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One IBM Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Midland, Michigan 48640 RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 William D. Paton, Esq. Counsel for the NRC Staff Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Pnl. Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com. Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Washington, D.C. 20555 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Barbara Stamiris Boca Raton, Florida 33433 5795 North River Road Route 3 Administrative Judge Ralph S. Decker. Freeland,Michshan4%623 Route No. 4, box 190D ygts ,? ,9 ' Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Carroll E. Mahaney Babcock & Wilcox P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 James E. Brunner, Esq. Consumers Powcr Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 .}}