ML20127A715
| ML20127A715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1993 |
| From: | Repka D NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Marucci M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13514 92-665-02-OLA, 92-665-2-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9301120048 | |
| Download: ML20127A715 (3) | |
Text
Y.35/M RRATED CORRESPONDENCE WTNSTON & STILW7N U 2 h k(L U
. '. ?- i.
FREDCACK H win 3 TON (1853-1686; 1400 L STREET, N W cm omcE S:LAS H GTRAWN 06vM946)
WASHINGTON. Oc 20005 3502 is WEST MCvER OmvE
'93 JAN -7 P 2 :02"c=%;*~'
y,,
,g,,,
FACS&LE (202) 371 $450
,i
,._.,.ii t
?
$ EET stw,. ~, mm m.
n una January 6, 1993 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Ms. Mary Ellen Marucci 104 Bromnell Street New Haven, CT 06511 Re:
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2), Docket'Nos. 50-336-OLA, (ASLBP No. 92-665-02-OLA). (Spent Fuel Pool Desictn)
Dear Ms. Marucci:
This 1r.tter will document our telephone conversation of yesterday afternoon.
First, based on his availability, you requested that we defer the previously noticed deposition of Dr. Kaku until February 22,.-1993.
I agreed to - this schedule change..
The deposition will be at our offices in New York-City at 10:30 a.m.,
on that date.
As we also discussed, the February 22 date is later than.
~
the. January 21, 1993 date established by the Licensing Board for completion of first round-discovery.
Since you selected this date, I will assume that you have no problem treating this-as a timely deposition, in effect extending the time for_first round discovery for this purpose only.
I will notify the Licensing Board of this agreement.
-Second, during our phone call we discussed briefly.your second. request for information_ from Northeast' Utilities, dated DeceGer 16, 1992.
As I stated, to-the extent that-we do not object to these new requests, we will provide our responses no later than the January 21, 1993 deadline established-by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
We will also endeavor to provide you with a. partial response to this or your earlier request by-January 17, 1993.
However, as I also indicated, we do have some objections
~
to these second round requests -- on grounds of relevance to the 9301120040'930106 PDR ADOCK 05000336 n2 O
. V)
NINSTON & STR AWN Ms. Mary Ellen Marucci January 6, 1993 Page 2 admitted contention and this proceeding, and on grounds of the overbroad scope of some requests.
I articulate those specific objections below.
As we noted in our December 18, 1992 letter, the Licensing Board has set January 12, 1993 as a date for filing formal objections.
To avoid formal objections, we are documenting here our problems with your requests so that we may resolve the matter informally.
- First, we object to Request 8.a as being vastly overbroad.
Putting aside your definition of "high density" racks, which is not orthodox, the request would encompass documents arid studies related to storage of spent fuel practically everywhere, with no clear relevance to the issues in this proceeding.
We will' read the request, therefore, as pertaining to information within our possession and control relevant to Millstone Unit No. 2 and' Amendment 158. Accordingly, in our forthcoming discovery response, we will limit our response in this fashion.
Second, to the extent Request 11 relates to the effects of criticality accidents throughout the " commercial and weapons" industries, we again object to the request as outside the scope of this proceeding and as overbroad.
The Licensing Board has already clearly ruled that spent fuel pool accident -scenarios and i
consequences are not within the scope of admitted contentions in this proceeding.
s_q_q,
e, ct.,
Me.norandum and Order (Following Prehearing Conference), at 3, dated November 24, 1992.
- Moreover, even if criticality accidents as you hypothesize have-occurred in the industry at facilities other than NU facilities, the records would not be available to us and would not necessarily have any bearing on the Millstone Unit No. 2 spent fuel pool racks.
- Hence, the request is overbroad.
In our phone conversation you agreed that you were not concerned here with information related to accident consequences, but rather to operating experience that suggests events that could lead to criticality.
We will answer the request from ' this perspective only.
However, again we must limit our response to criticality events of some relevance to the Millstone Unit No. 2 spent' fuel pool.
For.the same reasons as stated for Request 11, we object to Request 12.
This request again relates to accident consequences
-- a matter of no relevance to this proceeding.
The request on its face does not address anything other than accident consequences.
Therefore, no response is possible.
Third, Requests 13 and 15 seem.to relate to storage of-spent fuel beyond the capacity authorized by Amendment 158 (the subject of'this' proceeding).
Issues related to storage of fuel
WINSTON & STR AWN Ms. Mary Ellen Marucci January 6, 1993 Page 3 beyond the presently authorized capacity are outside the scope of this proceeding.
Accordingly, we will limit our response to these questions to a discussion of the capacity currently authorized by Amendment 158, the operational plans for the Millstone Unit No.
2, and a projection of when -- given those plans -- the spent fuel pool will reach capacity allowing for full core discharge capability.
- Finally, in preparing our response to your _ earlier re(
st (December 5, 1992), Paragraph 1, it has become clear that the request appears to be without limit insofar as it seeks documents related to the Amendment 158 criticality analysis.
We are concerned that the request would encompass information such as the models, computer codes, and calculatior, files that are proprietary to NU's contractor Holtec.
That is, these documents are confidential commercial information as defined by 10 C.F.R.
S 2.790(a) (4).
At this time, we object to the request to the extent it seeks confidential commercial information. We will provide to you, among other things, input information and output data similar to what has been previously provided to the NRC.
In addition, we will provide the contractor's report to NU describing the calculations and models in detail.
It is our understanding that the NRC Staff has already utilized this non-proprietary version of the information to have its contractor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, run an independent criticality analysis for the Millstone Unit No. 2 spent fuel pool, Regions A and B.
-I suggested during our phone call that, during this round of discovery, we limit our response to this non-proprietary information.
If this information is sufficient for your needs, we need not reach the issue of the discovery of the Holtec proprietary information.
If not, we agreed that neither your right to re-raise the issue not our right to o2 ject would be waived.
As with our earlier letter, we are proceeding to prepare our -responses to your discovery requests consistent with the above.
If you do not agree to the approach outlined above, we need to 'know as soon as possible (and no later than the end of this week) so we can timely file any necessary formal objections with the Licensing Board.
Sincerely, 9
David A. R pka cc:
Service List l-I
.. ~. -
,