ML20042C298
| ML20042C298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1982 |
| From: | Bergholz W, Edgar G ENERGY, DEPT. OF, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORP. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042C295 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203310182 | |
| Download: ML20042C298 (6) | |
Text
3/29/82 d
'82 MS? 29 R4:25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY )
)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
)
)
Docket No. 50-537 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
)
(Clinch River Breeder
)
Reactor Plant)
)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER In accordance w.ith the Board's Prehearing Conference Order of February 11, 1982, 10 C.F.R.
5 2.740(c)
(1981), and the discovery procedures set forth in Texas Utilities Generating Company, (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-81-22,14 NRC 150 (1981), the United States Department of Energy and Project Management Corporation, acting for themselves and on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority (Applicants), hereby submit their Motion for A Protective Order in regard to certain of the discovery requests set forth in Intervenors', National Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and the Sierra Club, (1) Sixteenth Set of Interrogatories, and (2) Ninth Request for Admissions, and (3) Fifth Request for Production of Documents, all of which were served on March 18, 1982.
For 8203310182 820329 PDR ADOCK 05000537 0
the reasons which follow and as detailed in Applicants' accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Applicants submit that good cause supports this motion and respectfully request that a Protective Order be issued.
After reviewing the aforenentioned discovery requests, on March 23, 1982, Applicants contacted Intervenors in an attempt to resolve voluntarily various areas of disagreement.
As a result of those discussions, Intervenors have agreed to a deferral (pending rulings by the Board as to the admissibility of Intervenors' revised Contention 17) of responses to Interrogatories 10-11 and Request for Admissions 1, 4-9, all of which relate to Contention 17.- /
1 Having thus narrowed their disagreements, the parties were unable to reach agreement on certain of Applicants' objections concerning the following four specific areas:
(1) safeguards, (2) occupational exposure limits, (3) fuel availability, and (4) the application of ALARA to accidents.
In this regard, Applicants' objections and the relief sought as to each of these areas are:
1/
In addition, Intervenors have agreed that the answers to interrogatories and admissions relating to Conten-tions 9, 10(a), and 17 may be provided by any officer or employee of Applicants having personal knowledge thereof or are the closest to having personal knowledge thereof rather than the two named individuals.
See Intervenors' Sixteenth Set of Interrogatories at 9; Int (rvenors' Ninth Request for Admissions at 13.
b.
1.
Safeguards (Contention 5, Interrogatories 4 and 5 at pages 7-8, Request for Production 1 at pages 1-2.)
Intervenors have requested information specifically directed at the adequacy of safeguards at all DOE, DOD and GOCO facilities as well as all NRC licensed facilities in contravention of the Commission's Order of August 27, 2
1976 - / and the Board's Order of April 6, 1976, admitting Contention 5.
In its Order, the Board specifically limited the scope of Contention 5 to "an eval..ation of the potential cost of safeguarding the CRBR fuel cycle facilities and transportation supports" for purposes of "the NEPA cost 3
benefit analysis.'" /
Intervenors' requcsts, which are directed solely to the the adequacy of safeguards rather than potential costs at the various facilities, are beyond the scope of Contention 5 as specifically limited by the Board and are thus patently improper.
(See Applicants' Hemorandum of Points and Authorities at 4-11).
2.
Occupational Exposure Limits (Contention 8, Interrogatories 2-3 at page 9, Request for Production 2 at page 4.)
Intervenors have requested information regar. ding draft and proposed EPA rules on occupational exposure 2/
United States Energy Research and Development Administration, (Clinch River Breed Reactor Plant) CLI-76-13, 3 NRC 67 (1976).
--3/
Project Management Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Plant) LBP-76-14, 3 NRC 430, 434-35 (1976).
limits.
Intervenors' discovery requests are limited to the scope of their admitted contentions.
Because the Board has already ruled that Intervenors may not challenge the occupational dose limits in 10 C.F.R. S 20.101,- / discovery 4
that goes beyond, or questions, the existing occupational dose limits is, a fortiori, improper.
Even if the draft and proposed rules were somehow relevant, the very contention to which these requests relate has been challenged by the Staff 5/
and Applicants.--
Thus, since discovery is limited to 6/
matters relevant to contentions admitted into controversy,-
discovery on Contention 8(d)(1) should be deferred until the Board rules in its admissability.
3.
Fuel Availability (Contention 17, Interroga-tories 1-11 at pages 10-14, Request for Admissions 1-10 at pages 13-14, Request for Production 1-2 at pages 4-5.)
Intervenors have requested information regarding the availability of fuel and DOE weapons programs.
These requests relate to programmatic planning issues.
Both Applicants and the NRC Staff have already challenged the 4/
Project Management Corporation, supra at 435.
5/
Applicants' Response to NRDC's Revised Statement of
~
Contentions and Bases at 15-16 (" Applicants' Response"), NRC Staff Response to Intervenors' Revised Statement of Contentions and Proposed Areas of Discovery at 15-18 (" Staff's Response").
6/
Allied General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving Station) LBP-44-13, 5 NRC 489 (1977).
7 adnissibility of these issues / as being outside the permissible scope of this proceeding.
In addition, in certain of its discovery requests, Intervenors have sought to expand the scope of this proceeding to include programmatic issues relating to the DOE Weapons Program.
Indeed, in its Request for Admissions to Applicants, Intervenors have raised issues related to the programmatic "needs" and " objectives" of the DOE Weapons Program. /
8 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Applicants' Motion for A Protective Order and Applicants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the discovery should not be had.
Alternatively, discovery should be deferred pending a ruling on admissibility of Contention 17.
4.
Application of ALARA to Accidents (Contention 22, Admissions 1-24 at pages 5-10.)
Intervenors seek information regarding the application of ALARA to offsite radiation exposures under accident conditions.
Both Staff and Applicants have challenged the admissibility of Contention 22 and have clearly demonstrated that the ALARA concept applies only to normal operations.- /
Accordingly, 9
7/
See Applicants' Response at 21-23; Staff's Response at YT!23.
i 8/
NRDC's Ninth Request to Applicants for Admission at 13, 14.
9/
See Applicants' Response, supra at 37-40; Staff's Yesponse, supra at 30-31.
. i for the reasons stated in Applicants' Motion for A Protective Order and Applicants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities, any discovery related to Contention 22 is improper and should not be allowed.
Alternatively, discovery should be deferred pending a ruling on admissibility.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those contained in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Applicants respectfully request that their Motion for A Protective Order be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
=
George L. Edgar Attorney for Proj Management Corporation
, s1 M
arren Bergho z Attorney for Dep tmen of Energy Dated:
March 29,1982 mm.
- -