ML20071C797
| ML20071C797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1983 |
| From: | Brandenburg B, Pratt C CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303080109 | |
| Download: ML20071C797 (31) | |
Text
.
wrudTD CORRED9RUEN5d
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI Before Administrativ p ages:
James P. Gleason, i
n Frederick J. ; bn Dr. Oscar H. 3(] is p
hf,*p A
gp 4,
t In the Matter of
)
~
)
4 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
OF NEW YORK, Inc. "(Indian
)
Docke t Nos. 50-247 Point Unit No. 2)
)
50-286
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
)
Ma r ch 4, 19 83 OF NEW YORK (Indian Point,
)
Unit No. 3)
)
____________________~__________
LICENSEES ' MOTION 'IO COMPEL FUR'IHER RESPONSES FROM GNYCE TO FIRST SET OF INTERROG ATORIES AND, DOCUMENT REQUESTS UNDER COMMISSION QUESTION 6 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740 (f) (1982), the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Power Au thority of the State, of New York, licensees, herecy move to
. compel the Greater New York Council on Energy (GNYCE) to fu r the r respond to the licensees' First Set of Interrogatoriese anc Document Requests Under Commission Question 6.
ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Brent L.
Brandenburg Charles M. Pratt l
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, INC.
OF NEW YORK f
4 Irving Place 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10003 New York, New York 10019 (212) 460-4600 (212) 397-6200 l
gM $0h0S$h g
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................
1 I.
G ENERAL G ROUN DS FOR MOTION............................... 4 Number 1:
Re f u s a l to Re s p o nd...........................
5 Number 2:
Incomple te or Evasive Response................ 6 Number 3:
Failure to Follow Instructions or Definitions. 7 Number 4:
Broad or Vague Response to Specific Request..10 Number 5:
Failure to Provide Supplemental Response......ll II.
LICENSEES ' DISCUSSION OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS............. 12 III. APPENDICES A.
Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Unaer Commission Question 6 (June 9,19 82)
B.
Le tter from Charles M.
Pratt to Greater New York Council on Energy c/o Dean Corren, Director (July 2,1982)
C.
Response of GNYCE to Interrogatories of Licensees Under Commission Question 6 (July 14, 1982)
D.
Le tter from Charles M. Pratt to Greater New York Council on Energy c/o Dean Corren, Director (December 3,19 82)
E.
Response of GNYCE to Informal Licensee Request for Supplemental Interrogatory Responses in Letter Da ted De cembe r 3, 19 82 (January 6,1983)
-i-
1 t
INTRODUCTION Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and the Power Au thority of the Sta.te of New York, licensees of Indian Point Units 2 and 3, respectively, hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to issue an order to compel 'the Greater New. York Council on Energy (GNYCE) to respond further to
.i l
Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories anc Document Requests Under Commission Question 6.1 GNYCE's responses to the licensees' discovery requests are evasive and incomplete, and i
l must be supplemented in accoroance with the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Licensees have made two attempts to obtain complete responses to its interrogatories ano document reque,sts under Question Number 6.
The first attempt was a formal one submitted on June 9, 1982.
'When the June 23rd deadline passec, the Power Au thority admonished GNYCE for its tardiness in submitting its responses to the June 9 interrogatories and its failure to provide prompt responses to interrogatories for wnich answers were known.2 No answers were received until three weeks af ter the deadline imposed by Commission regulations.3 See 10 CFR
$ 2.' 74 0 b.
1.
Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories ano Document Requests Under Commision Question 6 (June 9,1982)
(attached as Appendix A).
2.
Letter from Charles M. Pratt to Greater New York.
Council on Energy c/o Dean R. Corren, Director (July 2,1982)
(a ttached as Appendix B).
3.
Response of GNYCE to Interrogatories of Licensees Under Commission Question 6 (July 14,19 82) (attacneo as Appendix C).
Subsequently, the hearings were suspended indefinitely on July 27, 1982.
Soon af ter tne hearing process negan anew, licensees made a second and informal request for complete responses to its interrogatories.4 A letter format was sele'cted as licensees sought; to resolve discovery problems without approaching the Board as provided in its July 6,1982 i
or oe r.
Again, licensees' efforts were in vain as GNYCE faileo to recognize deficiencies which plagued approximately half of the responses for which we requested supplemental answers.
I 1
Identification of witnesses ano tne substance of each 4
witness' testimony is a problem of special concern for two reasons.
First, Intarrogatory 121 (See Appendix A at 28-29) requests detailed information on each prospective witness and the testimony of each witness.
GNYCE has provioed sketchy information on its witnesses in the Response of GNYCE to N.R.C.
Staff Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Question 6, November 3, 19 82 a t 2-4.
Mere reference to this sketchy information fails to answer sufficiently Interrogatory 121.
Complete answers to all parts of this interrogatory are necessary to adequate preparation of licensees' case.
Moreover, each party is unoer a continuing duty to supplement its responses, not only to responses whien were 4.
Le tter from Cnarles M. Pratt to Greater New York Council on Energy c/o Dean R. Corren, Director (December 3, 1982) (a ttachea as Appendix D).
l 1
accurate when made, but also to supply current Information for responses which were ' insufficient when stated previously.
See l
Board Memorandum and Order, June 3,1982.
Secondly, GNYCE as lead intervenor for Contention 6.3 and UCS/NYPIRG as contributing intervenor are, in effect, consolidatcd intervenors for the purpose of this contention.
a GNYCE must, therefore, provide complete information on the witnesses to be presented on the contention.
Moreover, the Interrogatory Number 121 required GNYCE to identify its witnesses on Question 6, generally.
While GNYCE has provided a list of names and some information on its witnesses in a response to an NRC Staff request, UCS/NYPIRG nas asserted that yet another witness, Vince Taylor, will provide testimony on, presumably, the same subjects as the GNYCE witness or, witnesses.
See UCS/NYPIRG Response to Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories Under Commission Question One, July 23,1982 a t 7.
GNYCE failed to mention the UCS/NYPIRG witness in its list of witnesses.
Thus, GNYCE has failed to follow the Board 's description of the role to be played by lead and contributing intervenors.
In the Board's view, any parties who raise sub-stantially the same issue must "consolioa te their presentation of evidence, cross-examination, briefs, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and argument."
10 CFR 3 2.715a.
Tne Board's description of the lead and contributing intervenors' roles allows an active, participatory part for the lead I --
^^
).
intGrvanDr, whilo it callo for o cupportiv2, pacDiva pnrt for the contributing intervenor.5 In short, GNYCE as lead intervenor must present witnesses ano documentary evioence on Contention 6.3, supported by the contributions of UCS/NYPIRG.
It must consolidate and coordinate its witnesses and tes timony with that of UCS/NYPIRG an'd any otner contributing intervenors.
Failure to do so should result in a dismissal of any evidence presented by or in behalf of the lead or contributing'intervenor.
I.
GENERAL GROUNDS FOR LICENSEES' MOTION The responses of GNYCE are inadequate in a number of aspects and seriously prejudice licensees' ability to respond to its claims.
See Board Order, October 1,19 82 at 5, 3k-39.
The 5.
April 2, 1982 order consolidated parties for the purposes of i
presenting testimony by stating as follows:
It will be the responsibiliry of tne leaa Intervenor to prepare filings, present witnesses, introduce accumentary evidence, conouct cross-examination, ano submit finaings of. fact with respect to the contention or contentions assigned to it.
Contributing Intervenors shall assist the lead Intervenor by supplying evioence, suggesting questions and plans for cross-examination, contributing to the fincings of fact, and providing any' otner assistance ana cooperation that will aid tne lead Intervenor in contributing to the development of a complete record in this case.
Board Order at 40; see also Beard Order of April 9,1982 and April 23, 1982.
-4 l
General Ground Number 1.
GNYCE Has Enfused to Respond to Some of Licensees' Interroga tories In a number of instances, GNYCE has simply refused to respond to certain requests.
The excuses vary.
In one instance, GNYCE stated the assertion made in the question was not the assertion upon which the question was based.
In other cases, the excuse was that to answer would be burdensome or e xpe nsive. 6 In stil,1 other cases, GNYCE refusea to answer, because the question, to them, was " unclear," " puzzling" or too
" broad."
Such outright refusals to answer are expressly forbidden by the regulations, case law, anc the orcers of this Board.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.740 (f) provides:
Failure to answer or respond shall not be excused on the gr.ound that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the person or party failing to answer or respond has applied for a protective order pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
No such protective order has been sought.
Objections to interrogatories or document requests shall be set forth in an appropriate motion for protective order, accompanied by points and authorities sufficient to enable the Board to rule immediately upon receipt of the opposing party's answer...
a 6.
The fact that a request may be burdensome or expensive will not relieve GNYCE of the obligation to answer or move for a protective order.
- See, e.g.,
In re boston Ecison Co.,1 NRC a t 5 84.
Ob]ections tnat interrogatories are burdensome are insufficient and invalid if the information requested is relevant and material.
Id.
"Burcensome discovery requests are not necessarily inapproprTate."
In re Metropolitan Edison Company, 11 NRC 893,897 (1980); see In re Pennsylvania Power & Ligh t Co., 12 NRC a t 334, n.
26.
~
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion to Compel Discovery and Setting Forth Additional Rules Governing Discovery) at 3 (June 3, 1982) (June 3 Memorandum and Order).
The Commission has s tated:
It is not proper for a party to ignore a discovery request.
Interrogatories, for example, must eitner be answared or ob]ected to in tne time allowed.
Oojections may be accompanieo by a motion for a " protective order" to modify or eliminate the obligation to respond, Dut the movant must es tablish " good cause" for issuing such an order.
Ano as in judicial practice, general objections do not provide that cause.
In re Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.,12 NRC at 322-23.
Therefore, in the absence of a motion for a protective order supported by more than generalized oojections, GNYCE may not refuse to answer licensees' inte rroga tories.7 i
i General Ground Number 2.
In te rvenors ' Responses Were Incomplete or Evasive Many of the responses to licensees' interrogatories are incomple te or evasive or both.
The Commission's regula tions expressly provide that "an evasive or incomplete answer or l
response shall be treated as a failure to answer. "
10 C.F.R.
S 2.740 (f).
Tne Commission has stated that evasive or incomplete responses " amount to no more than blatant refusal to answer."
7.
" Unjustified failures or refusals to comply with discovery orders have resulted in the dismissal of parties or conte ntions. "
In re Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric S tation, Units 1 ano 2), 14 NRC 150, 154 (1981) (footnote omitted).
"No intervenor can keep contentions alive at its own whim. "
Id.
In re Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and '2), 11 NRC 559, 564 (1980); accord In re Houston Lighting & Power Co., 9 NRC at 195 ("an evasive or incomplete answer shall be treated as a failure to answer or respond") ; see In re Wisconsin Electric Power Co.,15 NRC at 344
(" Language attempting to limit [a] response to...
interrogatories to anything less than a full, good faith l
response... does not in any way redsce [the] responsibility to comply with" an orde'r to respond to interrogatories).
General Ground Number 3.
GNYCE Has Failed to Fqllow Licensees' Instructions and De finitions Lice nsees ' interrogetories and document requests contain detailed definitions and instructions.8 Of phrticular importance are Def'inition Section B (defining " document"),
Section C (defining " identify"), and Section I (defining "specify," " ground" and " basis").9 GNYCE either cid 'not reaa these instructions or simply ignored them.
Be cause tne aoove l
terms recur constantly, the result is that many responses are i
deficient.
In addition, GNYCE was instructed in Section D to
"[i]dentify all your witnesses, areas of their testimony, the ir~
8.
See Appenaix A at 2-7.
9.
10 C.F.R.
y 2.704 (b) provides, in pertinent part, l
tha t "[e]ach interrogatory snall be answered separately and fully in writing."
Accord In re Houston Lighting & Power Co.,
9 NRC a t 195.
qualifications, and all reports, studies, letters, graphs, and other documents they plan to use in support of tneir testimony."
Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories and Document Request Under Commission Question 6, June 9,1982 at 6.
Licensees defined these terms and set cut instructions in order to facilitate the procurement of only relevant information.
GNYCE's utter disregard of these instructions has merely served to increase the time and expenses of licensees seeking pertinent information, and consequently the time and expense of intervenors in responding thereto.
It is lef t to the parties to narrow tnose issues
[to be litigated] through use of discovery devices so that evidence neea be produced at the hearing only on matters actually controverted.
This is why curtailing discovery tends to lengthen the trail -- with a corresponding increase in expense and inconvenience for all who must take part.
In re Pennslyvania Power & Light Co.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), 12 NRC 317, 33 4 -35 (1980)
(footnote omitted).
With respect to the identification of persons, GNYCE routinely failed to provide full information as requestea in Instruction Section D and Definition Section E; in many instances GNYCE failed to provice the information listed in l
Ins tru ction Sections C (1) - (4 ) with respect to documents.
In response to requests to "specify" or " state" the " ground" or
" basis" for their allegations, GNYCE contentea themselves with brief summaries of tneir positions, of ten failing to supply any of the information required by Definition Section I, GNYCE's failure to follow instructions in this matter i
is particularly prejudicial to licensees, as most of the l
interrogatories to, whicn this instruction is applicable were designed to elicit information from GNYCE regarding the factual bases underlying the asserted savings and alternative energy strategies proposed by GNYCE.
Without this information, licensees cannot adequately prepare their case, for tney have insufficient knowledge of GNYCE claims.
Learning the position of an adversary in litigation is a traditional and important aspect of discovery.
It is also an important element in developing a full evidentiary record.
In re Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three dile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), 11 NRC 893, 896 (1980).
Licensees are entitled to obtain all unprivileged 10 information relevant to the GNYCE' allega tions.
In re Pennsylvania Power & Ligh t Co., 12 NRC at 331.
Tnus, tney are entitled to learn the bases for GNYCE contentions, and such interrogatories are " wholly proper."
In re Boston Ecison Co.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), 1 NRC 579, 582 (1975).11 10.
GNYCE has made no allegations that information sought is subject to any claims of privilege.
11.
Accord In re Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.,
12. NIC a t 333 ("Tne Rules of Practice expressly sanction
. discovery into the claims of an opposing party.") ; In re l
Metropolitan Edison Co.,11 NRC at 897 (Licensee "has tne rignt to Know the nature of the charges as to which its interests will be adjudicated"); In re Houston Lighting & Power Co._ (Sou tn Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), 11 NRC 477, 479 (1980) (par ty must respond to interrogatories seeking "the basis for and rationale of a contention," as "it must have relied on information of some sort to formulate a contention"); see In re Northern States Power Co. (Minnesota) (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit
- 1), 5 NRC 129 8, 1302, n.4 (1977) ("It [in te rvenor 's]
representatives cannot understana reasonable inquiries about its own contentions, its contribution as a party to the proceeding would be negligible.").
e To permit a party to make skeletal contentions, keep the bases for them secret, then require its adversaries to meet any conceivable thrust at hearing (sic] would be patently unfair, and inconsistent with a sound recora.
In re Nor tne rn S ta tes Powe r Co. (Minnesota), 5 NRC at 1301.
GNYCE's attempt to keep licensees in the dark as to the bases of their allegations deprives licensees "of a full and fair opportunity to prepare [ their] response" to these allegations.
In re Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), 15 NRC 3 41, 345 (1982).
A failure to order GNYCE to respond to these interrogatories will force licensees to guess, the grounds for these GNYCE charges.
"It would be naive to expect licensee [s] to postulate the particulars of [GNYCE] conte ntions, then present a losing case agains t them" In re Metropolitan Edison Co.,11 NRC at 904.
This proceeding should "be governea by principles of full disclosure and [should not] resemble a game of hide-and-go-seek."
In re Wisconsin Electric Power Co.,15 NRC at 345.12 General Ground Number 4.
1 e
Requests for Specific Information here Of ten Answered by a General Reference to a Source in Waicn tne Response Allegedly May Be Found GNYCE, in response to a request for specific information, respondeo by making a general reference to a large document in which the information allegedly could De founc.
12.
See In re Commonwealth Eoison Co. (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2), 15 NRC 209, 215 (1982).
Tne " evidentiary record
[will not) be enhanced by a show of the licensee [s] defending against strawman contentions cast into litigaole form oy [ the]
licensee [s]* themselves.
In re Metropolitan Edison Co.,11 NRC at 904.
- 10
Such general answers are insufficient responses to specific interrogatories.
Answers should be comple te in themselves.
Tne interrogating party should not need to sif t through documents or other materials to obtain a complete answer.
GNYCE's apparent lack of documents is " improperly f rus tra ting [tMe 1.icensees ']
legitimate efforts to prepare for the cross-examination. "
In re Northern States Power Co.
(Minneso ta), 5 NRC a t 13 01 n.3.
- Moreover, "a party must furnish in nis answer to int'errogatoreis whatever information is 1
available to it. "
In re Boston Edison Co.,1 NRC at 584.
General Ground Number 5 GNYCE has Failed to Supplement Its Answers to Licensees' Inte rroga tories 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740 (e) requires parties to supplement incomplete respons'es to discovery requests.13 Responses alleged to be complete must be supplementea when the iaentities of persons having knowledge.of discoverable matters,'and of expert witnesses, are requestea or when the response was incorrect when made or has become incorrect since it was made.
13.
See also Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion to Compel Discovery and Setting Fortn Aaditional Rules Governing Discovery) at 3 (Ju ne 3, 19 82) ("all interrogatories filed by any party to this proceeding, past or future, shall be deemea to be continuing in nature and the party to whom they are addressed shall be under a continuing duty to supplement the responses as necessary to keep them currently accurate").
O In several instances, GNYCE responded to licensees' discovery requests by stating that they did not then have the answers which licensees sought.
In particular, GNYCE has failed to identify any witnesses who will testify on matters relating to Boar 6 Contention 6.3 or any cocuments relating to the economic study which was being performed by ESRG.
GNYCE s ta ted that the ESRG report would be available in July of 1982.
See Hearing Transcripts, April 14, 19 82 a t 90 2.
GNYCE is under a continuing duty not only to provide supplements to responses which were accurate when made, but also to supply current information for responses wnich were insufficient when stateo.
See Board Memorandum and Order, June 3,1982.
Moreover, seven months have elapsea since GNYCE responded to licensees' first set of interrogatories and
~
document reques ts, thus it strains credulity to believe tnat
(
neither the leading intervenor nor csntributing intervenors on i
Board Contention 6.3 has witnesses to present and that GNYCE has not evaluated the document which forms the backbone to this I
j proceeding.
II.
LICENSEES' DISCUSSION OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS Licensee Interrogatories Numbers 22, 23, 24 See General Ground for Motion Number 5.
These interrogatories ask for a scope of study, working pape rs, intermediate and final draf ts of testimony and exhibits to be relied upon by ESRG, consultants to GNYCE.
GNYCE stated l l l
1 in June of 1982 tha t this work would be completed by one month from the time ESRG received answers to the interrogatories served on the licensees.14 Hearing Transcript, Ju ne 18, 19 82, at 1249.
In April of 1982, GNYCE claimed tha t tne report woulo be ready by the beginning of July.
Tra nscript, April 14, 1982 at 902.
Licensees.' responses to GNYCE's interrogatories were served on July 2 and 6, 1982,15 thus ESRG's report shoula have been available during the first week in August.
GNYCE still claims without any e'xplanation that the requested information is "not available to GNYCE at this time. "
Response of GNYCE to Informal Licensee Request for Supplemental Interrogatory Responses in Letter Dated December 3,1982.
(January 6,1983).
Thorough preparation of licensees' case is impossible without i
knowledge of intervenor's assumptions and conclusions regarcing the economic impact of shutting down the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants.
Tnerefore, GNYCE should proouce tne requested information and documents imme ;iately.
t Licensee Interrogatories Numbers 25 and 26.
See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 3 and 5.
This interrogatory asks that GNYCE to icentify ESRG personnel who are working on the economic study.
GNYCE simply 14.
GNYCE's First Set of Interrogatories to Both Licensee Con Edison for Indian Point #2 and ana Licensee PASNY for Indian Point #3 (Ju ne 16, 19 82).
15.
Consolidatec Edison's Response to GNYCE's Firs t Se t of Interrogatories on Question 6, July 2, 1952.
Power Au thority's Responses to GNYCE's First Set of Interrogatories on Commission Ques tion 6, July 6,19 82.
. i
named the personnel and failed to fully identify the personnel as requested in Definition Section E.
Tne cefinition states that the person's full name, name of his employer, position with such employer, business address ano telephone number and present or last known home address and telephone number should be provided.
Such information was provided for only one witness, Da n R.
Anderson, in GNYCE's response to NRC Staff interroga-
)
tories regarding Question 6.
Thus, intervenor 's response is insu fficient.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 27 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 ano 3.
Interrogatory 27 asks GNYCE to identify the cost model is being preparea by ESRG for the economic study.
Tne response not only failed to provide information concerning prior use of the cost model, but also failed to comply witn Definition Section C.
i l
Licensee Interrogatories Numbers 29 and 30 See General Grounds for Motion Numoers 1 ano 3.
GNYCE failed to respond to both interrogatories which requestea tnat it produce correspondence concerning Indian Point (Number 29) and refuse-to-energy plants (Number 30).
Su ch correspondence is relevant to discerning the cases of conclusions or facts GNYCE may have gathered to support its contentions in this case.
- 14
1 1
Licensee Interrogatory Numoer 33 See General. Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 and 3.
This interrogatory asks the meaning of the assertion i
that conservation and cogeneration are " proceeding apace" in New York.
Intervenors failea to provide data, calculations or
. detailed facts to support its claim.
GNYCE uses general terms of reference such as " growing numoers of organizations" or "a wide variety of forms."
Such answers fail to give adequate information as requirea by Commission regulations.
See 10 C.F.R.S 2.740 (f).
Licensee Interroga tory Number 34 See General Grounds for Motion Number 5.
The interrogatory asks that GNYCE quantify the amount of conservation cu.rrently being achieved in New York.
One of GNYCE's most important contentions is that greater amounts of conservation can be achieved in New York.
However, it fails to provide parties even a starting place or casis Ior testing its assertions.
Af ter seven months, either GNYCE or its paid consultan t, ES RG, should have intormation available in answer to this interrogatory.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 3 6 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 and 3.
GNYCE's knowledge of the PSC's position regarding cogeneration is the subject of Interrogatory 36.
GNYCE lashes out in a verbal attack on the PSC's position ra ther tnan giving
- 15
a direct succinct cnswar to the interrogatory.
In adoition, GNYCE attributes one remark to Power Authority Chairmatn, John Dyson, but fails to give a specific citation for the s ta temen ts.
Moreover, no specific data, facts, citations or calculations were provided to support GNYCE statements.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 37 See General Grounds for Motion Number 2.
Interrogatory 37 asks GNYCE to state the extent to which conservation is the result of rate increases.
Intervenors simply repeat the question.
No facts, figures or documentation was offered to support their assertion tnat " conservation is undoubtedly the result of rate increases."
Licensee Interrogatory Number 38 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 and 4.
The interrogatory asks GNYCE to provide documents wnich compare the savings from conservation and cogeneration with the savings from the continued operation of Indian Point.
Inter-venors simply attached a copy of a document which purportedly answers only part of the interrogatory ano failed to inoicate on which page or pages the specific information could be found.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 41 See General Grounds for Motion Number 2.
GNYCE was as'ked to list existing and potential cogeneration sites and owners in New York City.
GNYCE aamitted
5 outright that "New York University and other projects underway" were not included on tte list.
If such projects are known to GNYCE, a detailed list should be provided.
General assertions are insufficient.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 48 See General Grounds for Motion Number 5.
The interrogatory asks whether coal conversions, refuse l
burning [ plants] and Canaaian imports will substitute for Indian Point energy.
GNYCE stated that it expected such substitutions, but failed to state any specific quantities to be produced oy the substitute forms of energy.
Again, GNYCE claims that
" supplemental information is still not available to GNYCE at this time. "
Response of GNYCE to Informal Licensee Request at 1 (January 7, 19 83).-
l l
Licensee Interrogatory Number 53 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 and 3.
Interrogatory 53 seeks information on the tax consequences of substituting cogeneration ano conservation for Indian Point power.
GNYCE's answer is incomplete, because it, fails to address tne issue of conservation.
Seconaly, no specific citation was given for statements attributed to the Legislative Commission on Science ana Tecnnology.
- Finally, GNYCE seems to ignore the fact tha t tax law nas a major impact on political decisions in spite of their assertion that " tax impacts are not economic impacts. "
Response of GNYCE to
. 1
Interrogatories of Licensees.Under Commission Question 6 at 7 (July 14, 19 82).
Licensee Interrogatories Numbers 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 See General Grounds for Motion Number 5.
These interrogatories address a variety of issues related to the impact a shutdown of Indian Point mignt have on financing options and debt service for the licensees.
(Numbers 55, 56 and 57).
In addition, costs of early decommissining were to be considered.
(Numbers 58 and 59).
GNYCE claimed that supplemental information regarding these questinons was not yet available and would become available when the ESRG study is-submitted as testimony.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 63 See General Grounds for Motion Numcer 3.
Interrogatory 63 asks GNYCE to produce a cocument, an outline mentioned during the prehearing conference hela on April 14, 1982.
GNYCE claims, now, tha t the outline was merely conceptual, yet tha t this allegecly conceptual outline was GNYCE does not claim l
written ana was subsequently thrown away.
tnus a to have no knowlecge of the subject of the interrogatory, reasonable reproduction or recollection of the outline should satisfactorily answer the question.
Instead, GNYCE siaesteps the issue by asserting that the " scrap of paper" was disposed of.
The definition of " document" includes "any KinQ of written
--w
matter," including, but not limitad to originals, copies ano draf ts of papers, ' notes and notations.
Thus, GNYCE concedes that it destroyed a potentially important piece of evidence.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 65 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 ano 3.
GNECE was asked to identify conservation and cogeneration projects which would replace Indian Point power, as opposed to those projects which would come on line even if Indian Point continues to operate.
GNYCE failed to suggest even one project or source or even to suggest the quantity of additional conservation or cogeneration projects necessary to replace Indian Point power.
It simply stated, withou t qualifica tion, tha t " conservation (electrical) ana 'cogenera tion are alternatives to the way Con Ecison operates.", Response of GNYCE to Interrogatories of Licensees Under Commission Question 6 at 10.
(July 15, 19 82).
This answer is vague.and unresponsive.
In addition, GNYCE refers only to Con Ed in its a nswe r.
The Power Authority is not mentioned, thus GNYCE's answer is not only evasive, out also incomplete.
Licensee Interrogatories Numoers 67 and 68 See General Grounds for Motion Number 5.
Documents were requested oy interrogatories 67 ana 68.
GNYCE implied that documents concerning.the reduced levels of power due to reactor vessel embrittlement were not,yet availaole
6 as of January 7, 1983.
(Number 67).
Furtnermore, it maae no comments on the methodology to be used to quantify the
\\
socioeconomic cost of continuing to operate Indian Point.
(Number 68).
Again, the passing of time (seven months) makes the 'unavailaoility of documents difficult, if not impossiele to believe.
i Licensee Interrogatory Number 75 See General Grounds for Motion Numoer 2.
The interrogatory asks whether GNYCE has included the costs of interconnection equipment between cogenerators and tne utility grid as a capital cost of installing 1,500 mW of cogeneration.
GNYCE respondea with a query on whether the interrogatory refers to a specific study or calculation and then launched into an attack on Con Edison's rate practices.,
The interrogatory was intendea to elicit a simple yes or no and, in the most optimistic scenario, to prompt GNYCE to provide the information requested.
Interrogatories do not have to refer to a specific writing, ou t only have to address issues and facts relevant to the issues at hand.
Licensee Interrogatories Numbers 81 ano 83 See General Grounds for. Motion Number 2, 3 ana 4.
Interrogatory 81 asks GNYCE to state its estimates and grounds for market penetration of conservation and coge ne ra tion.
The vague response elicited oy the question
addressed only cogeneration and failed to address conservation.
Moreover, no reasoning, facts, data or calculations are stated to support even the unexplicit answer given by GNYCE.
Interrogatory 82 asks whether GNYCE considered various barriers (institutional, legal, political and regulatory) to tne initiation of cons.ervation measures.
GNYCE arsertec that lack of awareness is the only significant barrier.
It faileo to establish any logical connection cetween the specific barriers stated in the question and the hazy, general assertion in tne response.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 87 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers, 2, 4 ana 5.
The interrogatory asks several questions about the GNYCE study of cogeneration.
Specifically, it asks whether Lne study compared 1,500 mW of cogeneration with Indian Point'in operation to the same situation without Indian Point.
GNYCE stated that its analysis failed to state the comparison.
In addition, no sensitivity analyses were maae with higher or lower amounts of cogeneration.
S ta ting tha t its study supplied only a
" crude level of detail," GNYCE claimed that its only purpose was to advocate further, detailed study by the City of New York.
In short, by its own admission, GNYCE is using a two year olc, unrefined study to support allegations in a nearing on an I
entirely different matter.
O l - -.
1 Licen7nn Intorregntory Nuncer 88 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 1 and 2.
GNYCE fails to give any indication of even a few i
governmental agencies whien have adopted ESHG conclusions in legal proceedings.
(Number 88)
It provided only a list of its clients without even an aste' risk or some other mark to determine whether ESRG conclusions had been aoopted by tne particular agency.
Thus, GNYCE's answer is incomple te.
It is submittec that it would not be burdensome to make a simple disposition survey of its files to determine the fact of ESRG's success or failure.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 89 See discussion concerning Interrogatory Number 88, supra.
This interrogatory asks for agencies which have adopted ESRG conclusions in any contested proceeding.
GNYCE's response is the same as in Number 88.
Licensee Interroga tory Number 92 See General Grounds for Motion Number 5.
Interrogatory 92 seeks an explanation of now l
I cogeneration and conservation will mitigate the cost of replacement power and for cocumentation in support of GNYCE assertions.
GNYCE claims not to have analyzed the situation.
Intervenors refer briefly to a study "soon to oe cone for tne City," but they fail to state the name or names of its authors,.
its title or publi. cation date.
Licensees seek to de termine whether GNYCE or anyone during the past seven months perfected such an analysis.
If GNYCE has such knowledge a complete identification should be stated expressly.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 93 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 and 5.
Interrogatory 93 asks wnether cogeneration will decrease electricity costs to noncogeneration customers.
Seven months ago, no analysis of the rate structure nad been cone.
Licensees seek to determine if such an analysis has been done within the last seven montns.
Licensee Interrogatory Numoer 96 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 and 5.
See comments on Licensee Interrogatory Number 87.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 101 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2, 4 ana 5.
I This interrogatory seeks to determine the economic benefit of conservation ana cogeneration to Con Eoison customers as comparea to tne cost of oil, natural gas, coal ano nuclear power.
Each of the alternatives was to be comparea in its turn to conservation and cogeneration.
Althougn GUYCE contemptuously labels such comparisons as " mere busy-work," the answers to these questions go to the very substance of the GNYCE case.
23 -
y
,m-
A clear statement of how the cost of replacing oil, gas e tc.
with conservation and cogeneration is required to make a reasoned judgment regarding the economics of various generation or savings methods.
Licensee Interrogatory Numbe'r 110 See General Grounds for Motion Number 3.
GNYCE failed to provide any supporting documents for the list of operating expenses to be saved by a shutdown of Indian Point.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 113 See General Grounds for Motion Number 2.
Number 113 asks GNYCE to identify and list any 5 mW hydropower site wnich would support sou theast New York cus tomers.
It also asks for the baseload of each site listed, the potential transmission route anc wnether tnat route would fall within the Adirondacks " Blue Line".
GNYCE failed to provide answers on the latter three issues.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 121 See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 3, 4 and 5.
See discussion concerning Interrogatory Number 25.
There are six parts to Interrogatory 121 which ask tna t l
intervenor supply a resume, a list of publications, and the subject matter and contention to be addressed by each witness among other things.
l
- 24
l hhile GNY,CE has provided some information on its witnesses in an earlier submission, the information fails to fulfill the request of this interrogatory.
As noted aDove, a great deal of time has passed since GNYCE first provioed information on their witnesses, thus the detaileo information should now be available.
In addition, any witnesses to be presented by contributing intervenors must be consolidated with those of the lead intervenor.
In July of last year, UCS/NYPIRG stated that it would present a witness to give Question 6 testimony.
GNYCE did not list the UCS/NYPIRG witness along with their witnesses in either the formal or informal interrogatory responses.
Tne Board explicitly stated that the evidence of lead and contribu ting intervenors is consolidated.
Therefore,,any information provided on GNYCE witnesses should include information on witnesses to be sponsored oy any contribu' ting intervenors.
As it now stands, licensees must assume that UCS/NYPIRG has withdrawn its witness or that intervenors cannot l
l agree between themselves.
Licensee Interrogatory Number 122 l
l See General Grounds for Motion Numbers 2 and 5.
GNYCE was asked to ioentify all communications, written or oral, with federal, state, county or local officials which they rely upon in answering any interrogatories.
GNYCE fails to refer to any correspondence cited elsewhere in their responses.
l
Intervenors failed to identify thoroughly their sources as instructed in Definition Sections C and D.
Thus, the GNYCE answer is sorely insufficient.
Respec fully submitt OYYb (
. h.
b b $4 l
Bran, denbu rg
/,,
Stephen L. Baum, Ge,neral Counsel Brent L.
Charles M. Pratt, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Assistant General Counsel OF NEW YORK, INC.
Licensees of Indian Point POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE Unit 2 OF NEW YORK 4 Irving Place Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 New York, New York 10003 10 Columbus Circle (212) 460-4600 New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Charles Morgan, Jr.
Paul F.
Colarulli Joseph J. Levin Jr.
r MORG AN ASSOCIATES, CH ARTERED 1699 L S tree t, N.W.
Wasning ton, D.C.
20036 (20 2) 466-7000 Bernard D. Fis chman Michael Curley Richard F. Czaga David H.
Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Macison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Da te d :
March 4, 1983 l
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
}
}
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COhPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.
)
Docket los.
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-247 SP
)
50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
)
'(Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
}
harch L, 1983 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that I have serven copies of the h0 TION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FaDM GNYCE TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS UNDER COMMISSION QUESTION 6 to the cervice list below on this 4th day of March,1983 by depositing it in the United States mail, first class.
Paul P. Colarulli, Esq.
John Gilroy, Stanely B. Klimberg JD3Gph J. Levin, Jr.Esq.
Westchester Coordinator General Counsel Pa521a S. Borowitz, Esq.
Indian Point Project New York State Charles Morgan, Jr. Esq.
New York Public Interest Energy Office Morgen Associates, Chartered Research Group 2 Rockef eller State Plaza 1899 L Street, N.W.
240 Central Avenue Albany', N.Y. 12223 W3ching ton, D.C. 20036 White Plains, N.Y. 10606 Charles M. Pratt, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.
Marc L. Par'ris, Esq.
Stsphen L. Baum New York University Eric Thornsen, Esq.
Power Authority of the
'. Law School County Attorney, State of New York 423 vanderbilt Ball County of Rockland 10 Columbus Circle 40 Washington Square South 11 New Bempsteaa hoad N3w York, N.Y. 10019 New York,'N.Y. 10012 New City, N.Y. 10956 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Charles J. Maikish, Esq.
Geoff rey CobD Ryan William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Litigation Division Conservation CDamittee Harmon & Weiss The Port Authority of Chairman, Director 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 New York & New Jersey New York City Aucubon Wahington, D.C. 20006 One Worlo Traoc Ocnter Society New York, N.*
4 0J 48 71 hest 23rd Street, butte 1828 New York, N.Y. 10010 Joan Bolt, Project Dire.: tor Ezra le Bailik, Izq.
Greater New York Council Indicn Point Project Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
on Energy New York Public Interest Environmental Protection c/o Dean r. Corren, Researen Group Bureau Director 9 Murray Street New York State Attorney New York University New York, N.Y. 10038 General's Office 26 Stuyvesant Street Two World Trade Center pw York, N.Y.10003 New York, N.Y. 10047 y
. James P. Gleason, Chairman
- Alfred B. Del Bello, Bon. Richard L. Brodsky Administrative Judge Westchester County Executive Member of the County Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Westchester County Legislature 513 Gilmoure Drive 148 Martine Avenue Westchester CDunty Silver Spring, Maryland 29091 White Plains, NY 10601 County Office Building White Plains, N.Y. 10601 Dr. Oscar B. Paris
- Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.
Pat Posner, Spokesperson Administrative Judge New York State Assembly Parents Concerned About Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Albany, N.Y. 12248 Indian Point U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
P.O. Box 125 Washington, D.C. 20555 Croton-on-Budson, N.Y.
10520 Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Charles A. Scheiner, Administrative Judge Botein, Rays, Sklar &
Co-Chairperson Atomic Safety & Licensing Berzberg Westchester People's Board Attorneys for Metropolitan Action Coalition, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Transit Authority P.O. box 488 Commission 200 Park Avenue White Plains,'N.Y. 10602 W:chington, D.C. 20555 how York, N.Y.10166 Erant L. Brandenburg, Esq.
Honorable Ruth Messinger Lorna Salzman Assistant General Counsel hember of the Cbuncil of Mid-Atlantic Consolidated Edison Co.
the City of New York Representative' cf New York, Inc.
District #4 Friends of the Earth, Inc.
4 Irving Place City Hall 208 West'13th Street New York, N.Y.10003 New York, N.Y. 10007 how York, N.Y. 10011 Mayor George V. Begany Alan Latman, Esq.
Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Villcge of Buchanan 44 Sunset Drive Joan Holt, Pro]ect 236 Tate Avenue Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Director Euchanan, N.Y. 10511 N.Y. Pub. Interest Research Group, Inc.
9 hurray Street New York, N.Y.10007 IAnnard Bickwit, Esq.
New York City Council Zipporah S. Fleisher General CDunsel c/o National Emergency West Branch Conservation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Civil Liberties Committee Association Cbanission 175 Fif th Ave., Suite 712 443 Buena Vista Road Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, N.Y. 10010 how City, N.Y.10956 ATTN Craig Kaplan Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Donald Davidoff Judith Eessler, Secretary of the Commission Director, REPG Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bapire State Plaza Rockland Citizens for Commission Tower Bldg., Rm 1750 Safety Energy Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, N.Y. 12237 300 New Berpsteac Road New City, N.Y.10956
- Asterisks indicate copies which were served with appendices attached.
l
, St wart M. Glass Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Steven C. Sholly Regirnal Counsel Paul 02essin, Esq.
Union of Concerned Room 1349 Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.
Scientists Fed 2ral Snergency Management Margaret Oppel, Esq.
1346 Connecticut Ave.,
Ag:ncy Botein, Bays, Sklar & Herzberg N.W.
26 Pederal Plaza 200 Park Avenue Suite 110,1 New York, N.Y. 10278 New York, N.Y. 10166 Washington, D.C. 20036 David H. Pikus, Esq. -
Ruthanne Miller, Esq.
Ms. Janice Moore Richard F. Czaj a, Esq.
Iaw Clerk, AS & LB Office of Executive Iagal 330 Madison Avenue U.S. N.R.C.
Director
/
New York, N.Y. 10017 Washington, D.C. 20555 Nuclear Regulatory Comun.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Docketing & Service Section*
Spence W. Perry Appeal E44rd Offica of the Secretary Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal Bnergency Commission Conunission Management Agency Wachington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 500 C. Street Southwest
.I Washington, D.C. 20472 Atomic Safety & Licensing Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Board
- Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Atomic Safety & Licensing W:chington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Washington, D.C. 20555 J
IFEW. TOLSON
- Asterisks indicate copies which were served with appendices attached.
m
.