ML20009A972
| ML20009A972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107140564 | |
| Download: ML20009A972 (17) | |
Text
.
7/10/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<g p
w p
\\) f-s BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARC b}
9 f
In the Matter of q,
p
,y
.g, BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY, et al.
Docket No. 50-4 4 4
(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720(h)(2)(ii) TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST SET OF INTERR0GATORIES TO THE NRC STAFF RELATIVE TO EMERGENCY PLANNING; NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER At the prehearing conference in Boston on July 1, 1981, the Comonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth) served the Staff with its First Set of Interrogatories Relative to Emergency Planning. The Staff pointed out that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740b(a) and i 2.720(h)(2)(ii),
the Commission's regulations did not require the Staff to respond to interrogatories unless the Licensing Board finds that the answers are "necessary to proper decision in the proceeding" and that the answers are "not reasonably obtainable from any other source," and, on that basis, directs the Staff to respond. The Licensing Board accordingly asked the Staff to inform the Board and parties by July 10, 1981, whether it would voluntarily respond to the Commonwealth's interrogatories or objectp) on the grour.ds of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720(h)(2)(11). The Staff hereby S,
O PDR
O.
provides its objections, on the basis of 10 C.F.R. 9 2.720(h)(2)(ii), to those interrogatories identified below. The assertion of these objections does not constitute a waiver of other objections, on grounds other than 10 C.F.R. 9 2.720(h)(2)(ii), the Staff may wish to make.
Interrogatories to which the Staff does not object on i 2.720(h)(2)(ii) grounds will be the subject of a Staff Response to be filed in the near future.
Before addressing specific interrogatories, the Staff would like to point out the striking similarity between the Commonwealth's First Set of Interrogatories to the Staff and its First Set to Boston Edison Company, both of which in many cases contained virtually identical interrogatories. This demonstrates that the Commonwealth recognizes that most of the information sought from the Staff by these interrogatories is available from another source - Boston Edison Company - and therefore the Staff should not be required to answer them pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720(h)(2)(ii).
Instruction C The NRC Staff objects to identifying "all documents known to the Staff which pertain to the subject racter questioned but which do not serve as bases for the Staii's answer..." (emphasis added). The Comonwealth is asking the Staff to identify for each of its 78 interrogatories, not counting subparts, all documents not relied upon by the Staff in answering the interrogatories but which the Staff
-y-.
w e
g.,,,-,.
a.---
y-
-,.,..,.,-ww ye
1 believes " pertains" to the subject matter of the interrogatory.
Cl early, such a request is overbroad and necessarily would require undue time and expense on the part of the Staff for information which is not necessary to a proper decision, is not relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740(b)(1).
In addition, to the extent that documents are "known" to the Staff to " pertain" to the subject of an interrogatory but are also known by others, including perhaps the Commonwealth itself, this instruction calls for information reasonably obtainable elsewhere.
Furthermore, a request which asks for identification of generic studies which " pertain" to Pilgrim Unit 2 is vague and ambiguous.
" Generic" studies are, by definition, generic and not specific.
Instruction E The Staff objects to these instructions on the ground that the information sought is not necessary for a proper decision.
All answers to interrogatories which the Staff voluntarily provides or is directed to provide are given by a knowledgeable employee designated by the Executive Director for Operations.
See 10 C.F.R. 6 2.720(h)(2)(ii).
Interrogatory No. 1 The Staff object to the direction in the footnote to identify generic studies because they are not necessary for a proper decision and because the information is available from another source - namely the
4_
Commonweal th.
The extent to which published generic studies may
" pertain" to the subject of the interrogatories can be determined by the Commonwealth by examining those studies at the NRC's Public Document Room or other available location. The Staff cannot be required to do work that the Commonwealth is capable of doing itself.
The Staff also objects because the request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and calls for infomation which is neither relevant nor reasonably calcuated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
There may be numerous generic studies which " pertain" to each of the fifteen subjects listed but which nevertheless are not relevant to this construction pemit proceeding for Pilgrim Unit 2 and which do not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Also, as explained above in response to Instruction C, such a request is ambiguous and vague.
Finally, to the extent that the Staff is asked to provide
" dimensions of the plume exposure pathway EPZ" if its answer to the first question posed by this interrogatory is not an unconditional affirmative, the interrogatory is objectionable because it in effect requi: es the Staff to perfom a study or analyses and thus is not proper discovery. Houston Lighting & Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-11,11 NRC 477, 478-79 (1980).
Interrogatory No. 2 The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the same grounds as are stated above for Interrogatory No. 1.
h
- i. Interrogatory No. 3 The Staff objects to the interrogatory on the ground that its answer is not necessary to a proper decision and on the ground that the infomation sought is reasonably available elsewhere. The Commonwealth can read for itself existing Commission guidance which is publicly available and draw its own conclusions. The Commonwealth cannot require the Staff to prepare a study or analysis for the Commonwealth.
The purpose of discovery is to enable parties to discover facts within the peculiar knowledge of others, not to enaDie one party to require another to do its research, analysis, and preparation. This interrogatory seeks no facts within Staff's peculiar knowledge.
Furthemore, with respect to " future Commision guidance," the Staff is asked to speculate and would object on that basis.
Interrogatory No. 4 The " range of estimates which would have been available to the Staff" is not necessary to a proper decision, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Similarly, the " highest evacuation time estimates which would have been acceptable to the Staff" are not necessary to a proper decision, irrelevant, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
6-Interrogatory No. 5 Whather or not the Commission and/or Staff found excessive evacuation times concerning nuclear plants other than Pilgrim Unit 2 is not relevant to whether or not the proposed Pilgrim Unit 2 complies with the Commission's requirements for a contruction permit, and therefore the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The 3taff therefore objects to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 6 To the extent that this interrogatory seeks to obtain the identity of persons who have nade' decisions concerning the need to conduct generic or site-specific studies, the Staff objects since such information is not necessary for a proper decision, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
It is the Staff's decision itself, if any, which may be relevant, not the identity of the person who made that decision.
Interrogatory No. 8 To the extent that this interrogatory requires information exceeding that required by the Commission's regulations concerning emergency planning rcquirements for a construction permit, the Staff objects on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E.
eue y
w
~,
-y-g--
--- g
-,y--,--
i-u-+
-+a-rw, e.
--- - - ' - - - - + -- - w
Interrogatory No. lib Except for the part concerning the CLEAR model, the Staff abjects on the ground that the information sought is reasonably obtainable elsewhere, namely from the State Police.
Interrogatory No. 11c The Staff objects to speculating about the behavior of individuals on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory No. Ild The information sought is more reasonably obtainable from the State Police and therefore Staff objects.
Interrogatory No. 11e The Staff objects to the information sought concerning other reactors on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither rel,evant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory No. 13 To the extent that this interrogatory seeks information beyond the scope of the Commission's requirements for issuance of construction permits, the Staff objects on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neit..ar relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E.) The Staff also objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, specifically the phrase " adequate facilities available to shelter simultaneously the total permanent and peak seasonal and transient populaticn in each of the following areas".
Interrogatory No. 14 The Commonwealth references "10 C.F.R. 9 50.47(s)(2)". There is no such regulation. The Commcawealth appears to be referencing 10 C.F.R. 9 50.54(s)(2). The Staff objects to this interrogatory, relating to Pilgrim Unit 1 and the operating reactor regulation cited, on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The issue in this proceeding is whether Applicants' preliminary emergency plans satisfy the Commission's requirements for a construction pemit.
See 10 C.F.R Part 50, Appendix E.
It follows that this interrogatory calls for information not necessary to a proper decision and which is irrelevant and not reast1 ably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory No. 15 The Staff objects on the ground that this interrogatory is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and in fact impossible to answer.
There are virtually an infir.ite r, umber of modifications "which could be
made" under unlimited and unspecified standards. The information sought would be mere speculation and therefore the Staff objects on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory No. 16 The Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations provide the standards for issuance of construction permits. To the extent that this interrogatory seeks further infomation, the Staff objects on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory No. 17 The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The " current status" of Commission " projects" is wholly irrelevant to this proceeding.
If and when any construction pemit requirements result from the " safety goal project" which are applicable to Pilgrim Unit 2, then the resulting requirements will become
" relevant" at that time. Any Commission notices describing the
" status" of the " safety goal project" will appear ar have appeared in the Federal Register and in the Public Document Room, both of which are available to the Commonwealth.
Interrogatory No. 18b, c The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that if the information sought exists, it is available elsewhere, namely, with those civil authorities who control such drugs.
Interrogatory No. 18d With respect to Commission guidance, if any, the Staff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the Comonwealth can ascertain the information for itself from the Public Document Room or from the Federal Register. With respect to other federal agencies, th'e infomation sought is reasonably obtainable from those other agencies.
Interrogatory No. 19 The Staff objects to that part of the interrogatory concerning the meaning of the Commonwealth's Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan.
The meaning of the quoted provisions of that Plan should be known best to the Commonwealth, the author of the provision in question. The Staff objects to the Commonwealth asking the Staff what the Commonwealth means.
In addition, the Staff points out that the Commonwealth's Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan has been submitted to the Staff in connection with Pilgrim Unit 1, not Pilgrim Unit 2, and concerns operating reactor requirements, not construction pemit requirements applicable in this proceeding. The information sought therefore is not necessary for a proper decision in this proceeding, is irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
\\,
Interrogatory Nos. 19-23 The Staff objects to that part of these interrogatories concerning the number of people without automobiles and dependent on public transportation on the ground that such information is reasonably obtainable from other sources, namely the Commonwealth itself through its motor vehicle administration and other Commonwealth offices, thu Applicants, and publicly available census data.
Interrogatory No. 26 The Staff objects on the ground that the information sought is more reasonably available from other sources such as the Commonwealth itself or the Applicants.
Interrogatory No. 35 The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that HMM Associates, Inc. was employed by the Applicants, not the Staff, and therefore the information sought is reasonably available from the Applicants and HMM Associates, Inc.
Interrogatory No. 36 With respect to Commission guidance, the Staff objects on the ground that the Commonwealth can read such guidance for itself in the Public Document Room or in the Federal Register. With respect to EPA and other guidance, the Staff objects on the ground that such information is more reasonably available from the EPA or other agencies.
Interrogatory No. 39 The Staff objects to the interrogatory insofar as it seeks information concerning FEMA findings or conclusions on the ground that to the extent that such information is discoverable, it is more readily available from FEMA.
Interrogatory No. 44 Insofar as this interrogatory seeks information concerning FEMA, the Staff objects since such information is more readily obtainable from FEMA.
Interrogatory No. 46 The Staff objects on the ground that information concerning modifications to the "CRAC Code" is not necessary for a proper decision, is irrelevant, and is not. reasonably calcuated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
In addition, the interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Furthermore, the information sought is more reasonably obtainable from the Argonne National Laboratory Computer Center, which maintains that " code". The Staff also objects to the interrogatory insofar as it seeks information concerning sites other than the Pilgrim site on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
13 -
Interrogatory No. 47 The Staff objects on the grounds that Commission guidance can be ascertained by the Commonwealth itself b; use of the Public Document Rooms or the Federal Register, and information concerning other federal guidance is more readily obtainable from the other federal agencies.
Interrogatory No. 53 The Staff objects to the part of the " interrogatory" concerning a map on the ground that it is not an interrogatory, but rather a document request. This Staff will respond to the request when it responds to the Commonwealth's First Set of Requests for Documents from the NRC Staff.
Interrogatory No. 56 The Staff objects on the ground that the information sought is more reasonably available from the Commonwealth itself or from Applicants.
Interrogatory No. 71-73 The Staff objects to these interrogatories on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
In addition, tie Staff points out that the information sought is more reasonably available from the Applicants.
r
,,,.---.,.m.
.m
.. ~ -,,,,,,.,,,,ey,
.-e,.,,
. -, -. _, - -, - -.,.,~w-y,.w..
-r
--e--,,,,_
vw-y--...---,w,,,+--..,-.-...--, - -.
--,,r-
-,--c-~,
14 -
Interrogatory No. 74 The Staff objects to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks information concerning Pilgrim Unit 1 on the grounds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Interrogatory No. 75 The Staff objects to this interrogatory insofar as FEMA is concerned on the ground that the information sought is more reasonably availble from FEMA.
Interrogatory No. 78 The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the groubds that the information sought is not necessary to a proper decision and is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720(h)(2)(ii), the Staff has objected to a number of the Commonwealth's interrogatories on the gound that they seek information which is not necessary to a proper decision in this proceeding or which is reasonably obtainable from another source.
In addition, without waiving other objections the Staff may wish to assert on grounds other than 10 C.F.R. 5 2.720(h)(2)(ii), the Staff has e
--v-
-,w
.-y--+-
w-
, -,, -w y
y,----
p,-
rw
>-ig-3--
y-pw
---w-9-_
-- g y
w u+-r-g---g*-v'
15 -
objected to certain interrogatories on the grounds that the information
- sought is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
See 10 C.F.R. 9 2.740(b)(1). The Staff also has objected to some interrogatoires on the grounds that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague or ambiguous.
On the basis of the above objections, and for good cause shown, the Staff hereby moves, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(c), for a protective order that the discovery to which the Staff has objected above not be had.3/
Respectfully submitted, O
Lc ck R. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of July,1981 l
J/
The Staff intends to voluntarily provide much of the information sought by the Commonwealth's First Set of Interrogatories to the NRC Staff shortly. The Board therefore may wish to await the NRC Staff's further response to those interrogatories before ruling on the Staff's objections and motions for a protective order.
.-v--
m
---y
--T---
w g
--g-w g
,-q e
e.---y,-
r-m-------y.
,-,-im--
e-a-w---w-e w-
- +, - -
T---+te
+ - - - - - -
~_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLiCENSINGBOARD in the Matter of BOSTONEDIS0NCOMPANY, eta [.
Docket No. 50-471 (PilgrimNuclearGeneratingStation, Unit 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE F'JRSUANT T010 C.F.R.
5 2.720(h)(2)(ii) TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE NRC STAFF RELATIVE TO EMERGENCY PLANNING; NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER" 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 Comission's internal mail system, this 10th day of July,1981:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.
The Board of Selectmen 3320 Estelle Terrace.
Town of Plymouth Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Plymouth, Massachusetts 023i0 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan William S. Abbott, Esq.
Union Carbide Corporation 50 Congress Street, Suite 925 P.O. Box Y Boston, Massachusef6.s 02109 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Michael B. Meyer Esq.
Dr. Richard F. Cole Jo. Ann Shotwell.Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Laurie Burt, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephen M. Leonard, Esq.
Washington,.D.C. 20555
- Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Public Protection Bureau Ropes & Gray One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Mr. Lester B. Smith William S. Stowe, Esq.
Director of Conservation Boston Edison Company Massachusetts Wildlife Federation 800 Boylston Street P.O. Box 343 Boston, MA 02199 Natick, Massachusetts 01761 Henry Herrmann, Esq.
Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.
Room 1045 Edward L. Selgrade, Esq.
50 Congress Street Massachusetts Governor's Office Boston, Massachusetts 02108 of Energy Resources 73 Tremont Street Mr. and Mrs. Alan R. Cleeton Boston, Massachusetts 02108 22 Mackintosh Street Franklin, Massachusetts 02038 Francis S. Wright, Esq.
Berman & Lewenberg 211 Congress. Street Boston, MA 02110
.n
~ -
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Atomic Safety and Lieansing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- ack R. Goldberg
/ounsel for NRC Staff C
_ _ _ -