ML20077P304

Motion to Compel Discovery from Util Re Interrogatories on Eddleman Contention 29/37B (Second Round)

ML20077P304
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/08/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20077P308	List: ML20077P304 ML20077P356 ML20077P378 ML20077P431
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309130336
Download: ML20077P304 (4)

Text

.. *

}gc l 3 0 C iht4f hdfd" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '83 geg , g g NUCLEAR REGULATOBY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECRETAie DCCHE-TING & SERvlu BRANCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bright

, Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman

'In the Matter of J Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuolear Power Plant, )

Units 1 ani 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-h68-01

) OL MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY and CESTIFICATE OF UEGOTIATIONS RE INTERSOGATOPIES ON EDDLEMAN 29/373 (2d roundi by Wells Eddleman Negotiations: On 8-19-83 Applicants served resnonses to my second round of discovery on Eddlenan 29 and on Eddienan 373.

Attorney Baxter and I agreed to negotiate our disputes on these on 8-29. Dean Aulick joined in the negotiations and progvess was made on many of the objections. Those unresolved which I have decided are worth pursuin6 are the subject of the following Motion to Compel.

I hereby certify that the above is true. 9-8-83

-MOTION TO COMPEL

.Concerning ny interrogatory 29-10(a) (p.26 of 8-19 response), ,

I believe Applicants are required to answer parts (1),(11) and (iii) under the Board's 8-24 Order. Part (iv) is dropped; Apolicants say a future response will cover this; if response is not nade, one should be compelled; as we are not negotiatir.c this now, I musti move to compel at this time if at all.

8309130336 830908 PDR ADOCK 05000400 i G PDR )

']DS 65 j

29/37B 2d round motion to comnel Concerning 29-16(c) thru (e), pages 35-36 of 8-19 resnonse, Applicants should reveal, 'o r give no access to, . the specifications

-for radiciodine detecting and removing equipnent which they have imade to their vendors.

~

If the irformation is proprietary, a protective order can-be entered,_or I can agree to not disclose it except for use in the hearings /apneals of this case.

The specifications' of this equipment are clearly relevant (see at 11) under-the Board's 8-24-83 Order 4 and Applicants should supply then or make then available. Since they don't have the vendors ' own specs for the equipment, their specifications To the vendors for it is ny next best source of information.

29-23(s)(t) and (u) are relevant because Applicants'

'clain of holding failed fuel to 1% of dae total is an inportant base of their radiciodine release estimate. (see 8-19-83 resp. at 51

.for the questions; objection is cited daereon.)

I understand Apnlicants operated their Brunswick nuclear plant (which has a similar 1% planned maximun-failed fuel fraction) in 1978 and perhaps at other tines with nuch higher levels of failed fuel -- around 15%. Ann 11 cants' willingness to operate with such levels of. failed fuel is clearly relevant to whether they can be trusted to . operate Harris in accord with the 1% failed fuel liiit for Harris. If not, radiciodine releases could exceed the Apnendix I

-limits -- CP&L's dose estincte is about 1/3 the linit or more already, so only 3-k% failed fuel could do for putting doses over the limit.

These parts (s),(t) and (u) are the most relevant of the ones objected to re 29-23, and should be answered for the reasons given above.

---'--------__-_a_ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __

Nb 29-25(b) (8-19 resp at 54) Should be answered, per 8-24 Board Order,

.except as to (xv) and (xvi). (see 8-24 Order at 11,12)

SECOND 37-B-5(h) (8-19 resp at 71) neans to ask about the works of the listed authors, which works concern the health effects mentioned in 37B. That's literally what it says. Applicants,

• informed of this meaning, stand on their answer of 8-19.

However, if they have nade or had nade for M:en any studies listed of the works of the authors ritad in 37B, which works concern the

-health effects cited in 37B, that is surely relevant to 37B.

Applicants should be compelled to disdose whether they have made any such studies (obviously r elevant), and to identify the documents containing any such studies (as asked in Interrogatory 37-B - 5 (o) (1) (bb) on page 72 of the resnonse).

3736(f), page 75 of 8-19 response, asks for a description of health effects Applicants believe are outside the scope of 37B.

They have said they think many health effects are, but they haven't been willing to give a descriptive answer to the question. It is cicarly relevant what health effects are covered in 37B and what health offects n're not. Applicants haven't answe=ed either; question yet.

37B 8 (b),(c) and (d), page 80 of 8-19 resp, should be answered as asked: the significance to health, to persons, and to their well-being is inquired about. Applicants nay answer that there is not a " statistical significance" in their view, but they nay not avoid answerin6 whether people think it is significant, and whether Applicants think it is significant to people, to have cannrcer or genetic damage.

SECOND 37B-8(a) thru (c), p.84, ask if Applicants know the value persons place on their lives. This is not a perception of risk.

It is a value of an environnental effect (death or genetic disease leading to death, from emissions of the Harris plant). This is relevant in

, i

=

_g.

weighing the costs and benefits of the health effects of the Harris plant. . Applicants'should be conpelled to tell what they know, if they know anything about this.

Second 37-B-8 (d) thru (t), 8-19 response at 85-87, objection on 87 thru 89 , are clearly relevant to weighing Harris electricity against health effects. Applicants, if they know answers to these questions, which are quite specific in an effort to pin down their opinions, should answer them. If the Steff is a nore anpropriate group to ask these questions of, I'll be glad to ask then. Whtt Apnlicants know, though, is relevant to 37B. The value of life in terns of electricity, and the values of health effects in terns of electricity, are exactly what is being balanced in licensing Harris to operate, from a NEPA standpoint.

CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Applicants should be compelled to above-cited respond to the itens of discovery on 29 and 37B in ny second round of discovery .-

8 September 1983 Wells Eddleman

....ch.,