ML20063J512

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responses to Applicant Interrogatories & Requests to Produce Re Palmetto Alliance Contentions 8,16 & 27 & NRC Second Set of Interrogatories & Document Production Requests.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20063J512
Person / Time
Site: Catawba  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/30/1982
From: Guild R
GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:
DUKE POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20063J502 List:
References
NUDOCS 8209020443
Download: ML20063J512 (18)
v • d • e


Text

-__ _ _ _ _ _ _________-

UNITED STATES OF A51 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFEfY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station. )

Units 1 and 2 )

PALMETTO ALLIANCE RESPONSES TO APPLICANTS' INTERR0GATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE REGARDING PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTIONS 8, 16 AND 27 AND TO NRC STAFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUESTS Intervenor Palmetto Alliance hereby responds to Applicants' Interro-gatories and Requests to Produce Regarding Palmetto Alliance Contentions 16 and 27, dated August 9,1982 and Contention 8, dated August 16, 1982, and to NRC Staff's Second Set of discovery, dated August 13, 1982, with the following answers, objections, responses and the Motion for Protective Order herewith served. Response is made on the following basis:

By its order of March 5,1982, the Licensing Board admitted uncondi-tionally only Palmetto Alliance's contention 27, but admitted conditionally Palmetto Alliance contentions 6, 7,18, 40 and 43 subject to revision by July 6,1982, after a round of discovery to be completed by June 3,1982.

On April 20, 1932, Palmetto Alliance served its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce upon Applicants and its Motion to Require Staff Answers to Interrogatories regarding these conditionally admitted contentions.

On April 9,1982, Applicants had served their First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce regarding these same contentions and Palmetto Alliance 8209020443 020830 DR ADOCK 05000

. a contentions 3, 4, 26 and 35; propounding some 441 " General" and " Specific" interrogatories, together with Requests for Production of "any and all docu-ments of whatever description, identified in responses to Applicant's Interrogatories. " Palmetto Alliance responded fully to each of these  !

Interrogatories and Requests objecting only to the 128 Interrogatories regard-ing the emergency planning contentions for which no plans yet exist.

See, Palmetto Alliance Responses to Applicant's First Set of Interro-gatories and Requests to Produce, and Motion for Protective Order, dated April 28,1982.

Neither Applicants nor Staff provided any answers whatever to the Palmetto Alliance questions nor affirmative responses to the Palmetto requests for production. Palmetto Alliance has diligently responded to all of Applicants 'and Staff discovery. It has been provided absolutely no infor-mation or cooperation in return.

In its order of July 8,1982, the Licensing Board admitted Palmetto Alliance contentions 8 regarding operator qualifications and 16 as limited to spent fuel storage at Catawba.

l Now Applicants and Staff have launched round two of their discovery offensive against this Intervenor with Applicants' 249 " General and Specific" l Interrogatories and Staff's 28 Interrogatories each to "be answered in six l

parts".

Palmetto Alliance hereafter endeavors to respond to each such discovery request to the best of its ability but asserts its objection to Applicants' and Staff's efforts to cause it annoyance, embarassment, oppression, undue burden and expense in discovery beyond the responses made herein. To observe

the obvious: it is not this Intervenor who is seeking to operate or license the Catawba Nuclear Station, it is not this Intervenor who is on trial, and it is not this Intervenor who controls the evidence relevant to the health, safety and environmental effects of the Catawba Nuclear Stations's proposed operation. On the contrary it is the Applicants and NRC Staff who propose the action adversely affecting Palmetto's members and who, presumably control the evidence regarding the effects of its operation. As soon as this Intervenor can catch its breath from responding to " lengthy" Duke and Staff interlocutory appeal requests, interrogatories, and requests for production, it intends to, once again, seek discovery from Applicants and Staff. It is l hoped that the evidence identified in response to Intervenor's second efforts l at discovery will be somewhat more illuminating than that supplied in response to Intervenor's first set.

Palmetto Alliance further asserts its objections to the discovery of privileged communication between it and its attorney to the extent that such is sought and to discovery of trial preparation materials including its attorney's work product reflecting his confidential mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories.

Intervenor believes that, to the extent it presently has sufficient knowledge to answer, answers to Interrogatories of the NRC Staff are fully provided in the following answers to Applicants' interrogatories.

August 30, 1982 Rob &t Guild v 314 Pall Mall Street Columbia, S.C. 29201 Counsel for Palmetto Alliance

B REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS Palmetto Alliance will permit Applicants'and staff to inspect and copy documents identified in its responses to interrogatories at a time and lo-cation to be agreed upon except documents reflecting privileged communica-tions between Palmetto Alliance, its members, officers and employees and counsel regarding legal opinions and advice and trial preparation materials representing counsel's work product represented by counsel's hand written notes contained in his private files. Palmetto Alliance objects to the production of these privileged and confidential documents.

A. General Interrogatories

1. Contentions 8, 16 and 27 Donna M. Ahlers, 21355 Devine Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29205, Staff, Palmetto Alliance, Inc.
2. None at this time.
3. No
4. Refsr to answers to Interrogatories regarding specific contentions.

The following documents in the custody or control of Palmetto Alliance reflect bases for contentions or conversations, correspondence or communication with individuals regarding contentions

1. Handwritten notes of Robert Guild, attorney for Palmetto Alliance reflecting conversations with members, officers and staff regardi.ng legal advice and opinions and notes reflecting his work product in preparation for trial; notes reflecting conversations with representatives and counsel for other parties and the presiding officer; notes reflecting the prehearing conference in the proceeding; correspondence between him and Palmetto Alliance and its members regarding his legal advice and opinions.
2. Handwritten notes of Michael Lowe concerning prehearing conference.

\

3 Rtgarding Contention 8:

1. Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, October 1979.
2. NUREG/CR 1270 VII, APP.7 Operator Selection Criteria, Guides, Requirements and Recommended Practices.
3. Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements, NUREG 0737.

Regarding Contention 16:

1. Palmetto Nuclear Report, January 1981, Volume 2 Number 1
2. Nuclear Report by Jess Riley
3. Statement of Sherwood Smith, Jr. before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs concerning Nuclear Waste Management Legislation, July 1981
4. Nuclear Waste Briefing for the SC Legislature
5. Summary of Remarks of Dr. John C. Ruoff to Christian Action Council Nuclear Presence in SC Seminar January 11, 1982
6. Summary of working group reports from Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Workshop May 7-8, 1981
7. Council on Economic Priorities Newsletter January 1982
8. Palmetto Nuclear Report, August D 81, Volume 1 Number 6
9. Sierra Club Fact Sheet " Shipping Casks: Are They Safe?"
10. Palmetto Alliance Fact Sheet #1 " Nuclear Waste Transportation"
11. Sierra Club Waste Paper August-September,193 .
12. Newsclipping from The State April 27, 1978 " Spent Nuclear Fuel

, Storage Causing Utilities Concern"

13. Newsclipping from The Columbia Record June 22, 1974 " Duke's Oconee Nuclear Plant Reports Leak"

! l

)

i

14. Article from Nuclear Safety _ Volume 20 Number 2 March-April 1979

" Operating Experiences: Another Perspective of the 1958 Soviet Nuclear Accident"

15. Script for 60 Minutes broadcast on Sunday, November ) , 1980 on CBS Television Network Volume XIII Number 8 )
16. Newsclip from The Columbia Record April 12, 1979 " South Carolina Has More Than Its Share of Nuclear Waste" i 17. Palmetto Alliance fact sheet " Radioactive Waste and South Carolina"
18. Sierra Club Waste Paper article Winter 1979-80 " Waste Not, Bury Not: Just What the Doctor Didn't Order" i
19. Palmetto Alliance " Fact Sheet on Nuclear Waste"
20. " Comments on Llump-1, itanaging low-Level Wastes" by Mina Hamilton, Sierra Club
21. Workshop notes "What are the Bonding and Perpetual Care Requirements for Waste Burial Sites?"
22. Public Affairs Bulletin " South Carolina and the Nuclear Waste Problem"
23. A Nuclear Waste Primer, League of Women Voters
24. Letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists July 12, 1982
25. Information release number 76-355 from ERDA Decemb4r 2,1976
26. Westinghouse Energy Infonnation Sheet " Nuclear Waste Disposal"
27. Article from Science September 23,1977 " Nuclear Wastes: Popular Antipathy Narrows Search for Disposal Sites" Volume 197 Number 4310
28. Article from Business Week August 22, 1977 p. 25 "A Layaway Plan For Nuclear Fuel Rods"
29. Article from Esquire April 25, 1978 p. 39 "The Nuclear Disaster They Didn't Want To Tell You About" by Andrew Cockburn

i Regarding Contention 27:

1. Palmetto Nuclear Report August 1981 Volume 2 Number 6
2. Preliminary Draft SERs for Catawba Nuclear Station to Mr. William 0.

Parker from Robert L. Tedesco Enclosure 3 April 6, 1982

3. NRC Staff Responses to CMEC Discovery #1...and Questions from Henry Pressler April 5, D 82
4. Letter from Robert Alvarez to David Reid August 23, 1982
5. Radiation Safety Services advertisement
6. Article in Audobon May 1980 "Supercritical : A Nuclear Excursion" i 7. Letter to Senator Tom Turnipseed from Carl J. Johnson, M.D.,

, M.P.H. #1

8. Letter to Senator Tom Turnipseed from Carl J. Johnson, M.D.,

M.P.H. #2

9. Report on Accidental Release of Tritium Gas at the Savannah River Plant May 2, 1974 by South Carolina Department of Health and

! Environmental Control

10. Handwritten memorandum from Ruth Thomas to Palmetto Alliance Executive Committee
11. A Bill to amend section 42-13-10, code of the laws of South Carolina, 1976
12. Statement of Robert Alvarez before the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

! 13. Article from The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 4,1980 " Radiation Detection System Is Questioned In a Review of Plant"

14. Summary of Radioecological Affidavit Prepared by University of Heidelberg, May 1978

_j 15. Article from The Greenville News May 17, 1981 "New Figures on Radiation Raise New Doubts" f

i i

. - , . . - - - , . . . - . ., ..,,-,,nn- , , , , - , . _ - . . . , _ , - _ , , - . - - - ,,-,--..-.,..v-n,-n-, . , - ~,e -

16. Article from Irmese Independent by Brian Costner " Report Sites Inadequacies in Emergency Evacuation Plans"
17. Questions from the Public on Radiological Emergencies submitted by Ruth Thomas
18. Response to Questions from firs. Ruth Thomas in Letter Dated January 12, 1981
19. Article " Unexpected Radiation Puzzles TMI Officials"
20. Radiation Risks for Nuclear Workers
21. NUREG/CR-2644 An Assessment of Offsite, Real Time Dose Measurement Systems for Emergency Situations April 1982
22. NUREG-0654 FEtiA-REP-1, Rev.1 Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness -

in Support of Nuclear Power Plants November 1980

23. Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three tiile Island October 1979 l

L

1 PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTION 8 l

1. Intervenor at present lacks sufficient knowledge to answer.
2. See answer to No. 1, above.
3. See answer to No. 1, above.
6. See, Response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
7. Common meaning.
8. See answer to No.1, above.
9. See answer to No.1, above.
13. See, Response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
14. Common meaning.
15. See answer to No. 1, above.
17. See answer to No. 1, above.
19. See Response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
20. Common meaning.
21. Yes.
22. Common meaning.
23. See answer to No. 1, above.
24. Common meaning.
25. See answer to No. 1, above.
26. See answer to No. 1, above.
27. Common meaning.
28. See answer to No.1, above.
29. See answer to No.1, above.
30. See Response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
31. Yes.
32. See answer to No.1, above.
38. See Response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.

~

39. Same meaning as attached to Applicants' use of term.
40. See answer to No.1, above; Intervenor no longer has copy of FSAR in order to answer.
41. See answer to No.1, above; Intervenor no longer has copy of FSAR in order to answer. I
43. See answer to No.1, above; Intervenor no longer has copy of FSAR in order to answer.
44. See answer to No. 1, above.
46. See Response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
47. Common meaning.
48. See answer to No. 1, above.
49. See answer to No. 1, above.
51. See answer to No.1, above.
52. See Response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
53. Common meaning.
54. See answer to No. 1, above.
55. See answer to No. 1, above.
56. See answer to No. 1, above.
59. See Response to Request for Documents and General Interrogatories.
60. Not necessarily.
61. See answer to No. 1, above.
62. See answer to No. 1, above.
63. See answer to No. 1, above.
64. See answer to No. 1, above.
65. See Response to Request for Documents and General Interrogatorits.
66. Yes. j
67. See answer to No. 1, above.
68. See answer to No. 1, above.
71. See Response to Request for Documents and General Interrogatories.
72. See answer to No.1, above; Intervenor no longer has copy of FSAR in 1 order to answer. -

i l

73. See answer to No.1, above; Intervenor no longer has copy of FSAR in order to answer.
75. No.
78. Common meaning.
79. See answer to No. 1, above.
81. See answer to No. 1, above.
84. See Response to Request for Documents and General Interrogatories.

x PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTION 16

1. Comon meaning.
2. Intervenor at present lacks sufficient knowledge to answer.
7. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
8. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
9. Common meaning.
10. See response to No. 2, above.
11. See response to No. 2, above.
16. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
17. Common meaning.
18. See response to No. 2, above.
19. See response to No. 2, above.
25. Comon meaning reflecting Applicants' plans and application.
26. Intervenor believes answer within knowledge of Applicants. See response to No. 2, above.
27. See response to No. 2, above.
28. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
29. Comon meaning reflecting Applicants' plans and application.
30. See response to No. 2, above.
37. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
38. Common meaning reflecting Applicants' plans and application.
39. Intervenor believes answer within knowledge of Applicants, See response-to No. 2, above.
48. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.

~

PALMETTO ALLIANCE CONTENTION 27

1. Common meaning.

l

2. Intervenor at present lacks sufficient knowledge to answer.
7. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
8. Common meaning i.e. , instrumt 'ts for continuous measuring and recording of radiation dose rates.
9. See answer to No. 8, above.
10. See answer to No. 2, above.
13. See answer to No. 2, above.
18. See answer to No. 2, above.
19. See answer to No. 2, above.
24. See answer to No. 2, above.
25. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
26. Common meaning.
27. See answer to No. 2, above.
28. See answer to No. 2, above.
31. See answer to No. 2, above.
33. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
35. See answer to No. 2, above.
36. See answer to No. 2, above.

l 39. See answer to No. 2, above.

41. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.

( 42. Gamma-emitting radionuclides that may be attributable to effluents l

l from the facility.

43. See answer to No. 2, above.
46. See responst to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
47. Common meaning.
48. See answer to No. 2 above.

~ '

49. See answer to No. 2, above.
50. See answer to No. 2, above.
51. See answer to No. 2, above.
52. See answer to No. 2, above.
53. See answer to No. 2, above.
54. See answer to No. 2, above.
55. Common meaning.
56. See answer to No. 2, above.
57. See answer to No. 2. above. )
58. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
59. Intervenor believes answer within knowledge of Applicants i.e. , personnel responsible for emergency operations.
60. In order to more effectively assess and moniter actual or potential  !

offsite consequences of radiological emergency conditions.

61. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
62. Consequences of radiological emergency conditions.
63. See answer to No. 2, above.
67. See answer to No. 2, above.
70. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
71. Common meaning to include appropriate protective actions.
72. Appropriate protective actions.
73. See answer to No. 2, above.
76. See answer to No. 2, above.
77. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.
78. Common meaning.
79. See answer to No. 2, above.
81. See answer to No. 2, above.

~

~

82. See answer to No. 2, above.
85. See answer to No. 2, above.
86. See response to Requests for Documents and Genreal Interrogatories.
87. See answer to No. 2, above.
88. See answer to No. 2, above
90. See answer to No. 2, above.
91. See answer to No. 2, above.
94. See answer to No. 2, above.
97. See answer to No. 2, above.

100. See response to Requests for Documents and General Interrogatories.

l

_ , _ _ .a

~

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, 1 Units 1 and 2 )

AFFIDAVIT OF DONNA M. AHLERS I, Donna M. Ahlers, do affirm as follows:

1. I am employed as Staff by Palmetto Alliance, Inc. at 213513 Devine Street, Columbia, South Carolina, 29205.
2. I am duly authorized to participate in answering interrogatories and requests for production regarding Palmetto Alliance contentions 8,16 and 27, and I affirm that the responses given are true to the best of my knowledge.

W '

Donn& M. Ahlers AFFIRMED AND SUBSCRIBED

<QlE ME THIS h DAY OF

\  % cr g o g u e e 1e CAme<INA

%m,

t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPEISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et_ al. ) Docket No. 50-413

) 50-414 (Catawba Nuclear Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Palmetto Alliance Responses to Applicants' Interrogatories and Requests to Produce Regarding Palmetto Alliance Contentions 8,16 and 27 and to NRC Staff's Second Set of Interrogatories and Document Pro-duction Requests; and tiotion for Protective Order.

in the above captioned matters, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 30 th day of August,1982.

James L. Kelley, Chairman George E. Johnson, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Panel Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan William L. Porter, Esq.

Union Carbide Corporation Albert V Carr, Jr. , Esq.

P.O. Box Y Ellen T. Ruff, Esq.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Duke Power Company P.O. Box 33189 Dr. Richard R. Foster Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 4263 Sunriver, Oregon 97701 Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Chairman State of South Carolina Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box .11549 Board Panel Columbia, South Carolina 29211 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555

r

- , e Chairman Jesse L. Riley Atomic Safety and Licensing 854 Henley Place Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 Comission Scott Stucky Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Station

Henry A. Presler U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Charlotte-Mecklenburg Washington, D.C 20555 Environmental Coalition 943 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 J. Michael McCarry, III, Esq.

Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

(

'\\

Rob 4rt 6 uild Attorney for,w_j 1metto Alliance l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20063J512&oldid=2668439"