ML20090A709

Objections to Limerick Ecology Action First & Second Sets of Interrogatories on Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions. Related Correspondence

ML20090A709
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	07/10/1984
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC.
Shared Package
ML20090A702	List: ML20090A697 ML20090A709 ML20090A721
References
OL, NUDOCS 8407120087
Download: ML20090A709 (4)

Text

e RELhTED CC ":'DMDEtNi

'el 00CEE7rn LL%c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'84 JL 11 A10:52 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board 0 0 > - I, L g...

w:;,' y In the Matter of

)

)

Philadelphia Electric Company

)

Docket Nos. 50-352

)

50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO LEA'S FIRST AND SECOND SETS OF INTERROGATORIES ON OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS Objections to LEA's First Set of Interrogatories The Applicant objects to portions of LEA's interrogatories nos. 25 and 26, which were filed as part of

" Limerick Ecology Action's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the Philadelphia Electric Company on LEA's Admitted

'Off-Site' Emergency Planning Contentions," dated June 20, 1984.

LEA interrogatory No.

25 asks,-

in relevant

part, whether " bus drivers, school staff, and other emergency workers [havel been informed of the ' risks' associated with j

remaining in or entering the EPZ during radiological emergencies.

(Emphasis added).

As admitted by the

Board, Contention LEA-15 asserts.only that the school district plans do not provide reasonable assurance that there will be enough school bus drivers in a radiological emergency; it makes no reference to unspecified "other f

8407120007 840710 PDR ADOCK 05000352 Q

PDR

O ;

emergency workers."

Consequently, that portion of interrogatory-no.

25 which refers to "other emergency workers" is vague and beyond the scope of Contention LEA-15; the Applicant has answered the question only insofar as it pertains to bus drivers and school staff.

LEA interrogatory No.

26 suffers from a

similar deficiency.

It asks whether "any promises, inducements, incentives

[have]

been made to bus companies or individual drivers or

' volunteers' to obtain their services.

(Emphasis added).

A' gain, LEA-15, as admitted, applies only to school bus drivers and not to unspecified

" volunteers."

Accordingly, that portion of interrogatory no. 26 concerning the use of " volunteers" is likewise vague and beyond the scope of Contention LEA-15; it has not-been addressed in the Applicant's answer to interrogatory no. 26.

Obiections to LEA's Second Set of Interrogatories By _ pleading dated June 25,

1984, Limerick Ecology Action

(" LEA") filed " Limerick Ecology Action's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to the Philadelphia Electric Company on LEA's Admitted

'Off-Site' Emergency Planning Contentions."

The postmark on the accompanying _ envelope indicates, however, that LEA's second set of interrogatories was not mailed to the Applicant, Philadelphia Electric Company, until June 27, 1984.

A copy of the envelope is attached.

6 m.

e 4 t

In its "Special Prehearing Conference Order Ruling on i

Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions (and Dismissing

CEPA, Lewis, and White as Parties),"

dated r

April 20,

1984, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l

directed that "[alll discovery requests must be served by

[

June 25, 1984."U Accordingly, LEA's second set of interrogatories was filed out of time.

The appropriate remedy for failure to comply with time limits set by a Board is to strike the document in question.

See Southern California Edison Co.

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 cnd 3), Docket Nos. 50-361-OL and 50-362-OL, " Order" (April 20, 1982)

(slip op. at 2),

Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), Docket No.

50-289,

" Order" (March 24, 1982)

(slip op. at 4).

'Indeed, this Board has recognized that pleadings ny not be late-filed without good cause, which LEA has not even attempted to offer here.

See

" Memorandum and Order Denying Motion for Additional Time for City of Philadelphia to submit Contentions" (September 2,

1983).

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in the Board's

" Memorandum and Order Confirming Schedules Established During Prehearing Conference" (May 16, 1983)

(slip op. at

3), the Applicant has discussed its objections to LEA's 4

• /

Slip op. at 90.

e

- I i

4 first and second sets.of interrogatories with Maureen Mulligan, LEA's representative, over the telephone.

LEA stated it understood the Applicant's objections and would examine them to determine what act. ion it would take.

Conclusion For the reasons discussed more fully

above, the Applicant objects to the designated portions of LEA I

interrogatories nos. 25 and 26 and LEA's entire second set' of interrogatories.

I Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahr Robert M. Rader Counsel-for the Applicant July 10, 1984 1

,._,-.,_,-_,,..,_.,.,_,.m.,.-_..,,.,.._,_.,-.7__-

..,., _ _ _... - _ _. - ~.., -,., - - -

.