ML20050C091

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motion for Protective Order Re Portions of NRDC & Sierra Club Seventeenth Set of Interrogatories & Request to Produce.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20050C091
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 04/02/1982
From: Bergholz W, Edgar G
ENERGY, DEPT. OF, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORP.
To:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8204080125
Download: ML20050C091 (9)
v • d • e


Text

9

. 4/2/82

  • rggg7r-T2 fPil -2 P 1 M3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WSJ f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION >1 o~

~

w c;w .. .-

ilPp 32 9- y "% y In the Matter of

)

)

"f%@f82s

( C ' % / ,

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ) A 9 g

)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION )

) Docket No. 50-537 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )

)

APPLI CANTS ' MOTI ON FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER In accordance with the Board's Prehearing Con-ference Order of February 11,19 82, 10 C.F.R. S. 2.740 (c)

(1981), and the discovery procedures set forth in Texas IJtilities 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, hereby submit their Motion for a Protective Order in regard to certain of the discovety requests set forth in Intervenors, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and the Sierra Club's Seventeenth Set of Interrogatories and Request to Produce to the Appli-cants. For the reasons set forth below, as well as those contained in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and nenwa%

G.

[L e i 5

. Authorities, Applicants submit that good cause supports this Motion and respectfully request that a Protective Order be issued.

1. Intervenors' Seventeenth Set of Interroga-tories and Request to produce, served only eight days after 4

its Sixteenth Set of Interrogatories, Ninth Request for

, Admissions and Fifth Request for Production violates the Board's February 11, 1982 Prehearing Conference Order and the Board's admonition against piecemeal discovery. At the Prehearing Conference held on February 9-10, 1982, this

Board correctly noted that Intervenors had already obtained massivediscoveryandexpresslyadvisd@allpartiesthat

]

discovery requests should be carefully prepared and

" focused" in order to (1) avoid unnecessary duplication, (2) protect the parties from burdensome and meaningless infor-

] mation requests and (3) permit the expeditious completion of

! 1 l the hearing process.- /

1

2. In accordance with its admonitions, on February 11, 1982, the Board issued a Prehearing Conference J

Order which provided that discovery would be limited to two rounds. In the first round of discovery, the parties were to submit discovery requests designed to elicit all relevant information. The second round of discovery was to be If Prehearing Conference Transcript at 1061, 1121-22.

l

. i i extremely limited and was expressly intended to cover only

" follow-up matters". The Board's Order provided as follows:

The parties shall attempt to obtain all relevant information in the first round, and the second round will be confined to follow-up natters. 2/

3. Notwithstanding the Board's admonition and its Order of February 11, 1982, Intervenors have simply pursued  ;

their discovery in accordance with their previous prac-tice. On March 18, 1982, Intervenors filed their first round of discovery which included Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and Requests for the Production of Docu-ments. Despite the fact that the second round of discovery was intended to cover only follow-up matters, on March 26, 1982, Intervenors filed their second round of discovery prior to even receiving Applicants' response to their initial discovery requests. Inasmuch as Intervenors had not yet received responses to their initial discovery requests, it is hardly surprising that their second round of discovery is not " confined to follow-up matters". Rather, in their second set of discovery requests, Intervenors raise new matters related to Contention 5 and totally unrelated to 3 / 1 their first set of requests regarding Contention 5.-

2/ Prehearing Conference Order at 1 -2 (February 11, 1982).

3/ Compare Intervenors' Sixteenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants' at 5-8 with Intervenors' Seventeenth Set of Interrogatories to Applicants' at 4-11. l

. l

. . 4. This Board has extended every opportunity to Intervenors to engage in broad discovery over approximately a two year period. For their part, Intervenors have obtained enormous amounts of information from Applicants and the NRC Staff including responses to over 2400 interroga-tories to Applicants and an equal number to Staff. That information is presently being updated and will provide Intervenors a firm foundation of "new information" related to its contentions. We understand that Intervenors inter-pret the Board's Order to allow an unlimited number of sets of discovery directed to new information on existing conten-tions 'so long as that discovery is completed by April 30, 1982. In addition, they interpret the Order to permit follow-up discovery on that discovery after April 30, I i

1982. Finally, they interpret the Order to allow follow-up discovery on Applicants' updated discovery. Applicants submit that this interpretation wholly ignores the terms of the Board's Order of February 11, 1982. I

5. In addition to violating the Board's Prehear-  ;

ing Conference Order, many of Intervenors' discovery -

requests go far beyond the scope of Contention 5 as )

expressly limited by the Commission's August.27, 1976 .

4 l

, Order / and the Board's Order of April 6, 1976 admitting .

4/ United States Energy Research and Development Administration (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)

CLI-76-13, 4 NRC 67 (1976).

. 5/

Contention 57- As Applicants noted in their earlier Motion for a Protective Order, the Board's Order of April 6,1976, limited the scope of Contention 5 and their discovery to "an evaluation of the potential cost of safeguarding the CRBR fuel cycle facilities and transportation supports" for 6/

purposes of "the NEPA cost-benefit analysis"l- Virtually all of Intervenors' latest discovery requests ere directed solely to the adequacy of safeguards, rather than costs and 7/

are patently improperi-

6. In additf.on to their lack of relevance to Contention 5, in a numt er of instances Intervenors' dis-covery' requests constitute a collateral attack on the 8/

validity of NRC regulat '.ons ,-- or an attempt to expand the 9/

inquiry beyr riRC's jurisdiction t- Finally, virtually all of these interrogatories seek information which is not necessary for the issuance of a Limited Work Authorization, but only for a Construction Permit or even an Operating License proceeding.

-5/ Project Management Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Plant) LBP-76-14, 3 NRC 430 (1976) .

6) Id. at 434-35.

1/ See Interrogatories 2-4, 7-18. l l

8/ See Interrogatories 2-4, 9-16. I 9] See Interrogatories 5-6, 9-11, 13-18. I l

. 7. On April 30, 1982, Counsel for PMC contacted Mr. Greenberg in an effort to obtain a resolution of the foregoing matters. The parties are, however, in fundmental disagreement as to each of the pointc set forth in para-graphs numbered 1 through 6 above. Thus, Applicants feel compelled to seek relief and obtain a ruling from the Board which will resolve these specific points of disagreement between the parties, l Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as l I

) those contained in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Applicants respectfully request that their Motion for a Protective Order be granted.

Respectfully submitted ,

l W) 7h/

George <y p ' (:7 L. Edgar \;

Attorney for Project i Management Corporation  !

<r-~ ,_

k-r-A arren E. Bergholz Attorney for the Department of Energy DATED: April 2, 1982 l

l t

{

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) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service has been effected on this date by personal delivery or first-class mail to the following:

      • Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Director Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P. O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923

      • Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 ,
  • Daniel Swanson, Esquire l
  • Stuart Treby, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Washington, D. C. 20545 (2 copies) i

-2_

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Washington, D. C. 20545

)

  • Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
  • Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 (3 copies)

William M. Leech, Jr., Attorney General William B. liubbard, Chief Deputy Attorney General Lee Breckenridge, Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee i

l Office of the Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37820 I

Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire l Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire i W. Walter LaRoche, Esquire James E. Burger, Esquire Edward J. Vigluicci, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 (2 copies)

401 Roane Street Harriman, Tennessee 37748 Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N. W., Suite 506 Washington, D. C. 20006 l

l l

Lawson McGhee Public Library 500 West Church Street

. Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 William E. Lantrip, Esq. 1 Attorney for the City of Oak Ridge '

Municipal Building P. O. Box 1 .

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 l Leon Silverstrom, Esq.

Warren E. Bergholz, Jr., Esq.

U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S. W.

Room 6-B-256, Forrestal Building Washington, D. C. 20585 (2 copies)

    • Eldon V. C. Greenberg Tuttle & Taylor 1901 L Street, N. W., Suite 805 Washington, D. C. 20036 Commissioner James Cotham Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Andrew Jackson Building, Suite 1007 Nashville, Tennessee 37219 M

George L. Ed' gar /

Attorney for Project Management Corporation DATED: April 2, 1982

  • / Denotes hand delivery to 1717 "H" Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
    • / Denotes hand delivery to indicated address.
      • / Denotes hand delivery to 4350 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Md.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20050C091&oldid=2545012"