ML20129H413
| ML20129H413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1985 |
| From: | Linenberger G, Margulies M, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#285-316 OL, NUDOCS 8506070569 | |
| Download: ML20129H413 (25) | |
Text
\
,[
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairmar. DOCHETED Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Ustiac Dr. Oscar H. Paris 15 JUN-5 Pl2:24 0FFICE OF SLchtit,, -
) 00cKUl?tG & SERVlu In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-424-0L BRAliCH
) 50-425-OL GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
SERVED JUN -51125 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plants, Units 1 and 2) June 4, 1985
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Joint Intervenors' Motion To Compel)
On March 1, 1985, Joint Intervenors, Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, filed a motion to compel Applicants to respond to interrogatories and produce documents. The discovery requests arise from Joint Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories which refer back to Joint Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories. Movants alleged that Applicants have failed to offer substantial and warranted objections to the interrogatories and requests to produce. They further asserted that Applicants failed to comply with 10 CFR 2.740(f)(1) which provides in part, " Failure to answer or respond shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the person or party failing to answer or respond has applied for a protective order ...".
850607 9 850604 PDR A K 05000424 0 pon 9 4
Applicants filed an answer on March 18, 1985 opposing Joint Intervenors' motion to compel. They contend that 10 CFR 2.740(f)(1) is inapplicable because Applicants responded to the requests by written objection, thus making a motion for a protective order unnecessary.
Applicants argue the justness of their refusal to respond and request that the motion to compel be denied i_n toto.
The parties in the past had been successful in resolving disputes among themselves through negotiation. As a result the Board, by letter of March 26, 1985, called upon the parties to attempt to resolve discovery differences by way of settlement. Comendably, they were successful in part. Some of the requests were withdrawn. As to others, additional information was furnished or will be provided. We were notified by letter of Apri' 22, 1985 that the parties were unable to reach any agreement concerning interrogatories B-6(s), B-19, B-20, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-27(c), B-29, B-42, B-43, B-44, B-47 and B-48.
The NRC Staff has taken no position on the discovery dispute between the Joint Intervenors and the Applicants.
Applicable Legal Standards Discovery in proceedings before the Comission is governed by 10 CFR 2.740-2.742. Subparagraph 2.740(b)(1) provides in part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding ... and shall relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identified by the Commission or the presiding officer in the pre-hearing order entered at the conclusion of the prehearing conference... It is not ground for objection that the
t .
information sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The Commission's discovery rules are analogous to those in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Pretrial discovery is liberally granted to enable the parties to ascertain the facts in complex litigation, to refine the issues, and prepare adequately for a more expeditious hearing. Pacific Gas &
Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1), LBP-78-70, 7 NRC 1038,1040(1978). Discovery aids in eliminating the element of surprise. It may shorten the hearing with its attendant expense and inconvenience, and it increases the ability of the parties to develop a complete record. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 322 (1980).
i Limitations should be placed on discovery where the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, is unduly burdensome, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. It has been held that a party is not required to engage in extensive independent research. It need only reveal information in its possession or control, although it may be required to perform some investigation to determine what information it actually posses. See Susquehanna, supra, ALAB-613, 12 NRC at 334.
Rulings On The Issues The failure of Applicants to apply for a protective order, referred to in 10 CFR 2.740(f)(1) should not act as a bar to allowing them to defend their positions. The regulation has been criticized as i
m
confusing. See Consumers Power Co. (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility, ALJ-80-1, 12 NRC 117, 130 n.9 (1980). An appeal board has said that objections "may" be accompanied by a motion for a protective order.
Susquehanna, supra, ALAB-613, 12 NRC at 322-23. Under the circumstarces we need not view the requirement as mandatory and the Board will rule on the objections raised. This will enable the parties to have the discovery disputes determined on a record made by both and provides fundamental fairness. Form should not prevail over substance.
Disputed Interrogatories Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-6(s)
It asked:
Page 1410976, the Applicants state, "Should we not hear from Transamerica by this date, we will assume that there exist in your organization a lack of dedication to ensure a quality product per the specification and the contract." Do the Applicants believe that TDI is dedicated to ensuring a quality product per the specifications, contracts and regulatory requirements?
Provide the bases for the response.
Applicants responded:
RESPONSE: Applicants object to interrogatory 8-6(s) on the following grounds:
(1) interrogatory B-6(s) asks the Applicants to speculate concerning the subjective intent of TDI, and (2) interrogatory B-6(s) requests information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Contention 14 alleges that there is no reasonable assurance that
(
l diesel generators manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc., to be used i
3 at Plant Vogtle, will provide a reliable and independent source of on-site power and that inadequate quality assurance and quality control have resulted in substandard engines which are subject to common mode failures. Ir support, Intervenors asserted Applicants should have made a general assessment of the suitability of the generator and that their failure to do so has brought Applicants' own quality control capabilities into question, undermining confidence in the safe functioning of the operating plant contrary to NRC QA requirements.
The quote in the interrogatory from Applicants' letter shows that when the letter was written Applicants were in the process of then considering whether the manufacturer was committed to producing a quality product as called for by contract. The interrogatory tangentially relates to the alleged failure of Applicants to assess the suitability of the generator and the inaction's effect on the Applicants' quality control capabilities and on their ability to operate th'e plant in accordance with NRC quality assurance requirements.
In applying the discovery rules in the manner previously discussed, the Board finds that Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-6(s) is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pertaining to Contention 14. Joint Intervenors' motion to compel answering the interrogatory is therefore granted.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-19 Interrogatory B-19 of Joint Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories asked:
,4-List all wells used to map the marl aquiclude under VEGP. Provide marl data from each.
Describe test techniques and whether the marl material brought to the surface was through corings or cuttings. Discuss well 42E. Discuss uncertainty ranges.
Applicants responded:
RESPONSE: The extent of the marl aquiclude was determined primarily by exploratory drill holes, not wells.- Volumes II and III of the VEGP Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) contain geologic logs describing drilling and sampling methods and lithology for those drill holes. The Applicants' response to interrogatory B-2 of the Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories describes the testing techniques and data sources used.
Well 42E is discussed in the Applicants' response to interrogatory B-16 of the Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogat5 ries.
Applicants object to that portion of
-interrogatory B-19 that requests them to " discuss uncertainty ranges" on the ground that it is vague, confusing, not susceptible to a proper response.
This interrogatory relates to Contention 7, which alleges .that an accidental spill of radioactive water on the site could result in contamination of the water table aquifer under under Plant Vogtle and possibly deeper aquifers as well. We indicated in our Memorandum and Order dated September 5, 1984 that we were not convinced that the Tuscaloosa aquifer is as isolated from the surface as Applicants would have us believe, or whether there are one or two deep aquifers under VEGP.
Applicants argue that the Joint Intervenors have failed to specify the particular parameter, measurement, or data they want discussed or I i i
<- what measure of uncertainty they wish to have Applicants' discuss.
Moreover, Applicants assert that ranges of uncertainty for all drill hole and soil data have not been evaluated. Responding to this argument, Joint Intervenors assert that any scientific evaluation has a range of uncertainty.
Applicants are correct in asserting that they are not required to perform additional research or data analysis in order to answer an interrogatory. On the other hand, we believe it possible that the Applicants did make an effort to determine the variability in some of the data collected during the ground water field studies on and around the VEGP site. See, FSAR, Section 2.4.12.1.2. An estimates of the dispersion of data (such as ranget standard deviation, confidence limits, etc.) around central values (e.g., mean values) that now exist in the files of the Applicants or their contractors are relevant estimates of uncertainty and shall be provided and discussed by the Applicants in response to this interrogatory.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-20 Interrogatory B-20 of Joint Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories asked:
How many wells mapped the confined aquifer underlying the VEGP (the FSAR lists only MU-1 and 2). Discuss the uncertainty in the VEGP analysis of the confined aquifer mapping.
Applicants responded:
RESPONSE: As discussed in the Applicants response to interrogatory B-1 of the Intervenors First Interrogatories, the presence of the confined aquifer at the site was determined from various
published reports concerning the geology and groundwater hydrology of the region. The sequence and depths of the different aquifers and aquieludes beneath the VEGP site were determined by site exploration as. discussed in Applicants' response to interrogatories 8-1 and B-24 of the Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and described in Section 2.4 and 2.5 of the PSAR and FSAR.
The use of observation wells in the confined aquifer to determine the contours of the piezometric surface for that aquifer system is discussed in section 2.4.12.2.3.2 of the FSAR and shown on Figure 2.4.12-6 of the FSAR.
The Applicants object to that portion of interrogatory B-20 that asks them to " discuss the uncertainty of the VEGP analysis of the confined aquifer mapping" on the ground that it is vague, confusing, and not susceptible to a proper response.
The arguments of Applicants and of Intervenors in support of their positions on this interrogatory are similar to the positions taken by themwithrespecttoInterrogatorfB-19,andourfindingandrulingare likewise similar. Applicants shall provide and discuss any estimates of ,
uncertainty that presently exist in their files or the files of their contractors.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-24 Interrogatory B-24 of Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories asked:
RE: VEGP Response to 108-2: Provide the laboratory perme WIIity tests conducted on core samples from marl exploration holes; provide core sampling techniques, core sample depths, core sample locations and other pertinent data. Provide field test correlations for the same core sample locations.
The VEGP power block excavation exposed an upper 25 feet of marl with a surface of about one million square feet exposed, approximately one-third of one percent of the VEGP areal site. Provide the uncertainty ranges in asserting that there are no voids, dissolution cavities, systematic fractures, or joints (exclusive of the multiple penetrations
_g.
through the marl by confined aquifer observation and production well) that would provide a path of movement of
.. groundwater contamination through the marl. Provide the uncertainty ranges inclusive of marl well penetration.
Discuss the consistently large water level differences in light of the lack of correlation between the active, confined aquifer observation well water levels. Why do the confined aquifer water levels vary and what is the source of the variability?
. m.
Applicantrie'sponded:
RESPONSE: The laboratory permeability tests referred to in
,, the Applicants' response to interrogatory B-2 of the Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories were conducted on core samples of sands above the marl. No laboratory tests were conducted on core samples from the marl. The exploration core drilling was conducted according to the specifications outlined in the contract with the drilling contractor, which follow the ASTM D 2113 standard method procedures. The geologic logs of drill holes contained in the PSAR and FSAR show the information requested concerning sample depths and locations.
Applicants object to the second paragraph of Interrogatory B-24 to the extent that it asks the Applicants to " provide the uncertainty ranges" on the ground that it is vague, confusing, and not susceptible to a proper response.
Subject to that objection, Applicants state that the effectiveness of the marl as an aquiclude has been demonstrated to a very high degree of confidence by a variety of methods, as discussed in the Applicants" response to interrogatory B-2 of the Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories. The marl has been studied by means of packer permeability tests in the field, numerous drill holes, and detailed geologic mapping of the large areas exposed during excavation. These studies did not reveal geologic features that would provide a path for potential contaminants to migrate from the water table aquifer to the deeper confined squifers. The lack of structures in the marl that would provide a path for movement of ground water contamination is verified by the consistent difference in water levels in the unconfined and confined aquifers as shown in Figures 2.4.12-6 and 2.4.12-7 of the FSAR.
,- - - - . - - - - -- - ._ - -----,. - - - - - - - - - - . , ~ v
Water levels in observation wells open to the confined aquifer will vary in response to changes in recharge and discharge rates. Other factors such as pumping and barometric pressure also play a part.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Feb. 12,1985)at48-50.
Again Applicants argue that the Intervenors' request for
" uncertainty ranges" is " vague, confusing, and not susceptible to a proper response", and again Intervenors reply that "any scientific.
evaluation has a degree of uncertainty associated with it". Once again we rule that Applicants shall provide any measures of uncertainty they or their contractors may have for the data from tests and measurements described in Applicants', response,to Interrogatory B-2 of the Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories.
It is not clear to us whether estimates of variability in the data from permeability tests or water level measurements, if available, would satisfy intervenors request for " uncertainty ranges in asserting that there are no voids * *
- that would provide a path for movement of groundwater contamination through the marl" or the request for
" uncertainty ranges inclusive of marl well penetration." It seems to us that the assertion that no voids or fractures exist is an interpretation of the data or statistics calculated from the data, or both, and that any uncertainty associated with such an interpretation is a subjective judgment. Therefore the Intervenors can make their own subjective judgment if they have access to the same numbers available to Applicants, viz., the data in the FSAR plus any estimates of variability
in those data that might be available to Applicants or their contractors. Such information, if available, shall be provided to Intervenors.
As for the " uncertainty ranges inclusive of marl well penetration",
we share the Applicants' confusion with respect to what the Intervenors are requesting. Therefore to the extent the motion requests information relating to uncertainty associated with or attributable to marl well penetration, it is denied.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-25 Interrogatory B-6 of Joint Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories asked:
Please list all ground dater contamination discovered at Plant Hatch and all studies of the tritium contamination of ground water at Plant Hatch.
Applicants responded:
RESPONSE: Applicants object to interrogatory B-6 on the following grounds: ,
l (1) interrogatory B-6 seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) interrogatory B-6 requests information outside the scope of those matters identified as being in controversy in this proceeding by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Board") in its Memorandum and Order on Special Prehearing Conference Held Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.715a.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Nov. 29,1984)at19.
Interrogatory B-25 of Joint Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories then asked:
12 -
~
RE:- VEGP Response to 108-6: VEGP has made many technTeaT statements anc. drawn numerous technical conclusions based on esoteric assumptions and recondite theories. . The l technical conclusions cannot be assailed without validation L from two perspectives, either by finding groundwater l contamination in the VEGP aquifers in the future or by showing that-similar technical conclusions at other facilities have f been contraverted. Groundwater contamination at the nearby Savannah River Plant and at Plant Hatch are relevant. Provide the Plant Hatch information~ requested in IQB-6 but expand it to include all US electric generating power stations and all-radionuclide and contaminants released at each site (cf. VEGP-r Response p. 92 where VEGP uses effluent data from other sites as part of VEGP's own technical statement).
l' ' Applicants responded: ,
RESPONSE: Applicants object to interrogatory B-25 on the following grounds, i ,
(1) interrogatory B-25 seeks information that is not i relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and that is
~
L not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, L (2) interrogatory B-25 requests information that is l
outside the scope of those matters identified as being in
- controversy in this proceeding by the Board in its Memorandum and Order on Special Prehearing Conference Held Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.715a, and p (3) . interrogatory B-25 is overly broad, unduly
- burdensome, and oppressive. and providing the requested j information would necessitate an unreasonable and costly L expenditure of time, effort, and research by Applicants.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories and I Request for Production of Documents (Feb. 13,1985)at50-51. j l' :
Applicants argue that groundwater contamination at Plant Hatch is
! irrelevant to possible groundwater contamination at Plant Vogtle, ,
i because the geology and hydrology of the region in which Plant Hatch is l
l' located differ from the geology and hydrology at Plant Vogtle. Further, t
they argue that groundwater contamination at the Savannah River Plant is
[
f l
i
,et-vn-+-= .---+eer --me -w v %m w+ www _, _e+,-eg r- w - --* w w .e - =, ww w ---- ww --w r ve y-w vv ege w y--+= ,w m-w sww w weyw mmirm=
t .
L irrelevant because that facility is not an " electric generating power st,ation." Finally, Applicants believe that the request for information v ,
"on groundwater contamination at all electric generating power stations y (
- in the V. S. "is overly broad, extremely burdensome, and of no value' to Joint Intervenors' pursuit of Contention 7." Intervenors respond by arguing that Applicants' conclusion that a spill at Vogtle would not contaminate the Tuscaloosa aquifer can be assailed by showing that J
similar conclusions at other facilities have been contraverted.
.We agree with the Applicants that the request for the,m to supply information about groundwater contamination at each U. S. electric generating power facility is unduly burdensome. Moreover, it would q probablyrequiretheApplicantst6undertakenextensive15 dependent research. Therefore the request for the Board to compel the Applicants to supply information about every electric power plant in the U. S. is denied.
~
. In light of the Applicants' information that the geology and hydrology at Plant Hatch are different from those at Vogtle, we deny the request for Hatch data because it would be of no value in this proceeding. Should Intervenors be able to establish that Applicants' infonnation is incorrect, however, we would reconsider the matter.
As regards the Savannah River Plant (SRP), we recognize that it is not an electric generating power plant. On the other hand, there are ,
nuclear reactors at SRP, so that the potential for groundwater ;
contamination to occur certainly exists. To that extent information about SRP might be relevant. Furthermore, SRP is close enough to Plant s.
Vogtle to make it reasonable to assume that the geology and hydrology at SRP are probably similar, though not identical, to those at Vogtle. But it appears that the Intervenors already have access to information about groundwater contaminatio6 at SRP, i.e., from a former Senior Project Engineer of SRP's Nuclear Waste Management Branch. See letter from William F. Lawless to Danny Feig, dated May 29, 1984, ff. Tr. 165.
Therefore we deny the request to compel Applicants to supply information about groundwater contamination at SRP on the grounds that the discovery information sought is presently available to the Intervenors.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-26 Interrogatory B-26 of Joint Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories asked:
RE: VEGP Response to 108-7: What financial assurances exist that WP will be abTe to fund not only the post-operational environmental radiological and chemical monitoring programs associated with decommissioning the VEGP plant but also the cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater at VEGP. Since the predominant well pattern in the area surrounding VEGP l indicates primarily groundwater table well users (FSAR), what i steps will VEGP take to financially and technically return the 3000 plus acre VEGP facility back to public domain free of l radionuclide and hazardous waste contamination in water table
! aquifer?
! Applicants' responded:
RESPONSE: Applicants object to interrogatory B-26 on the following grounds:
(1) interrogatory B-26 asks for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) interrogatory B-26 requests information beyond the scope of those matters identified as being in controversy in this proceeding by the ASLB in it Memorandum and Order on
=
Special Prehearing Conference Held Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.715a, since the Board did not admit proposed Contention 3 ,
submitted by Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia; and I (3) interrogatory B-26 requests information concerning the financial qualifications of the A contravention of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.33(f)pplicantt in and 10 C.F.R. 9 50.40(b), which have eliminated as an issue in an operating license application proceeding the financial qualifications of an electric utility applicant.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories and l
Request for Production of Documents (Feb. 13, 1985) at 51-52.
Applicants argue that this interrogatory relates to the financial
! qualifications of the applicant and to decomissioning. With respect to the former, Applicants point to the Commission's March 31, 1982 financial qualifications rule which prohibits litigating this matter in operating license cases. With respect to decomissioning, Applicants argue that decommissioning has nothing to do with the issue of whether t-f an accidental' spill at Vogtle could contaminate groundwater.
Intervenors argue that the information requested is " clearly relevant to protection of the groundwater and public health and safety.
The information requested concerning technical provisions for protection of the ground water is not relevant to the financial qualification rule."
The Commission's rule that bars litigating financial qualifications of utilities in operating license cases remains in effect, although it is now pending a challenge in court. Therefore, to the extent that this interrogatory requests information about financial qualifications, Intervenors' motion to compel must be denied.
k-. .
It is clear to us that that the thrust of this interrogatory is to obtain information on financial qualifications as they relate to both !
the operation of Plant Vogtle and its decommissioning. To the extent that the question, "* *
- what steps will VEGP take to financially and technically return the 3000 plus acre VEGP facility back to public domain free of radionuclide and hazardous waste contamination in water table aquifer?" can be separated from the financial qualification issue, l I
the fact remains that the question focuses on decommissioning.
Our reading of Contention 7 leads us to conclude that the issue here is whether an accidental spill during the operation of Plant Vogtle could result in radioactive material entering groundwater. The issue is not whether the Applicants can return the VEGP site to the public domain free of radioactive contamination. That matter clearly relates-to i
decommissioning and is therefore not relevant to Contention 7.
! For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors motion to compel the i
f Applicants to respond to Interrogatory B-26 is denied.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-27 Interrogatory B-18 of Joint Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories asked:
)
Describe all tests, studies, analyses or surveys f * * *
(c) that consider the cumulative effects of the operation of the Savannah River Plant and Plant Vogtle on the ground water and aquifers.
Applicants responded:
RESPONSE
(c) Applicants object to part (c) of interrogatory of B-18 on the following grounds:
I -(1) interrogatory B-18(c) asks for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and (2) interrogatory B-18(c) seeks information beyond the scope of those matters identified as being in controversy in this proceeding by the Board in its Memorandum and Order on Special Prehearing Conference Held Pursuant to l 10 C.F.R. 2.715a.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Nov. 29,1948)at30-33.
Interrogatory B-27 of Joint intervenors' Third Set of l
Interrogatories then asked:
L f
RE: VEGP Res)onse to IQB-18(c): The Savannah River Plant emissions of 10x, SDx, and TSP have been found to be within 20 to 810 percent of acceptable SRP boundary release limits
- measured at 30 to 40 kilometers from plant center southwest of L the VEGP site. VEGP on the other hand is only 15 km from SRP
}
plant center, a likely location for SRP airborne hazardous and
! radionuclide depositions. Also, strontium-90 released from SRP in concentrations already exceeding EPA drinking water standard have been found in milk at Waynesboro, Georgia, 45 km from the SRP plant center. VEGP is between Waynesboro, and SRP. Therefore cumulative effects are relevant. Please respond _to IQB-18(c).
Applicants responded:
RESPONSE: Applicants object to interrogatory B-27 on the following grounds:
(1) interrogatory B-27 asks for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and
'(2) interrogatory B-27 seeks information beyond the scope of those matters identified as being in controversy in this proceeding by the ASLB in its Memorandum and Order on Special Prehearing Conference Held Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.715a, since the Board rejected proposed Contention 2 submitted by Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, which dealt with the cumulative effects of radioactive releases from Plant Vogtle and the Savannah River Plant.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Feb. 13, 1985) at 52-53.
Applicants argue that interrogatory B-18(c) addresses cumulative environmental effects, a subject which we excluded from consideration in our Memorandum and Order dated Septem! ec 5,1984. LPB-84-35, 20 N.R.C. 887, 913-14 (1984). Intervenors argue that this question is directly related to groundwater contamination and therefore is relevant to Contention 7.
If the Tuscaloosa Aquifer underlies the Savannah River Plant as well as the Vogtle site then the possible contribution by Plant Vogtle
,to groundwater contamination attributable to the SRP would certainly be relevant in this proceeding. The situation here is distinguished from that considered in LBP-84-35 because there the denied contention addressed the cumulative effects that would result from the re-opening of the L-2 reactor at SRP, a matter not within our jurisdiction. The possible contribution of Plant Vogtle to existing groundwater contamination is clearly within our jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Applicants possess any information that relates to possible cumulative effects on groundwater of the operation of Plant Vogtle and the operation of the SRP, that information should be made available to the
~
Intervenors in response to this interrogatory. If the Applicants have information that shows that releases into the Tuscaloosa Aquifer from SRP could not become mixed with possible releases into that aquifer from VEGP, then that information is also relevant and should be provided.
To the extent indicated by the foregoing, Intervenors motion to compel a response to Interrogatory B-27 is granted.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-29 Interrogatory B-29 of Joint Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories asked: -
RE: VEGP Response to 'IBQ-27, p. 39: VEGP states that the marl is an aquiclude and that the Cretaceous Aquifer is confined and isolated from VEGP releases. The Savannah River Plant made similar assurances.in 1976 (C.H. Ice). What range of uncertainty exists with this VEGP claim? VEGP assumes a marl is nonexistent under the Savannah River and that contaminants migrating _in the water table aquifer would not penetrate the Tuscaloosa Aquifer underlying the Savannah River because of higher head differences between the Tuscaloosa
[ Aquifer] and the Savannah River. SRP has made similar assurances in the past but contamination has been found in Tuscaloosa wells. What range of uncertainty exists with the VEGP claim that the Tuscaloosa will be open under the Savannah River alongside VEGP but that downward contamination flow will
-be prevented.
Applic' ants responded:
RESPONSE: Applicants object to interrogatory B-29 on the ground that it is vague, confusing, and not susceptible to a proper response since Applicants do not know what Intervenors mean by " range of uncertainty." Also, the head differentials between the Cretaceous (Tuscaloosa) aquifer and the Savannah River have no connection with contamination found in wells at the SRP.
Subject to that objection, the effectiveness of the Blue Bluff marl as a barrier to groundwater movement has been investigated through several avenues of study as described in the Applicants' response to interrogatory B-2 of the Intervenors First Set of Interrogatories. The extent of those
studies and the consistency in the results obtained provide a sound basis for concluding the marl is effectively impermeable and will act as a barrier to groundwater movement.
A reversal of the present direction of the potential hydraulic gradient between the Cretaceous aquifer and the Savannah River would require either a very large reduction in the available recharge to the aquifer, or a very large increase in the extractions from the aquifer in the vicinity of the VEGP. Neither of these possibilities is credible.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Feb. 13, 1985) at 54-55.
The Applicants responded to this interrogatory as they did with respect to the other. interrogatories that requested information about uncertainty measures, and the Intervenors answer as they answered in those other cases.
We must diverge slightly from the course we took in the case of the other interrogatories requesting uncertainty measures, because here we share the Applicants lack of understanding of what is meant by " range of uncertainty" when applied to what appears to be a general conclusion based on a variety of observations. As Applicants point out, these observations are referenced in their response to interrogatory B-2 of the Intervenors First Set of Interrogatories. We rule here as we ruled on Interrogatory B-24: to the extent that the Applicants or their contractors have uncertainty estimates for the various data referenced in Applicants' response to Interrogatory B-2, that information shall be made available to the Intervenors. Those estimates, if available, may enable the Intervenors to make their own judgment about the uncertainty associated with Applicants' general conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons Intervenors motion to compel a response to Interrogatory B-29 is granted to the extent we have indicated.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-42 L-1. The requests comprising this interrogatory are directed toward discovery with respect to subcontention 10.5, which challenges the adequacy of qualification of solenoid valves used at Vogtle. Its basis related explicitly to solenoid valves canufactured by Automatic Switch Co. (ASCO) and to tests performed by Franklin Research Center wherein certain ASCO valves failed to perform after exposure to high temperatures. Applicants object to request L-1 because it is not restricted to ASCO valves. We agree that such a restriction is appropriate, and determine that, With such a restriction, request L-1 shall be answered by Applicants, since it is directly relevant to the environmenta qualification of such valves.
Applicants res,)ond further to request L-1 by stating that they have not yet developed a maintenance and surveillance program for ASCO valves, although such a program will be established prior to operation.
Applicants are directed, however, to advise Intervenors of the basic scope and/or nature of such a future program and to make details of said program available to Intervenors in a timely manner when the program is formulated.
L-2. As indicated above, the L-2 request is restricted to ASCO valves. Likewise, the maintenance and surveillance program matter is also relevant and is to be responded to by Applicants, as set out in the previous paragraph.
L-3. Again, this request is-restricted to ASCO valves and we deem that Applicants' further response is dispositive of request L-3.
Intervenors' motion to compel with respect to L-3 is denied.
L-4.. Restricting their response to ASCO valves, Applicants are directed to provide Intervenors with the answer to L-4(a), which is relevant to substantiatio'n of environmental quilification compliance.
-M-1. We deem Attachment C to the March 13, 1985 letter from J. E. Joiner to Ms. L. Fowler to be responsive to Intervenors' document
' request M-1 at this time. Accordingly, Intervenors' motion to compel-
'with respect to M-1 is denied. However, Applicants are reminded of their obligation under 10 CFR 2.740(e) with respect to supplementation
- of.' responses.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-43 This interrogatory relates to subcontention 10.7 concerning 4 Vogtle hydrogen recombiners.
N-4. To the extent Applicants possess information applicable to'this' request, they are directed-to provide same to Intervenors. Such information may be relevant to the manner in which these specific recombiners are to be utilized at Vogtle.
N-5. We concur with Applicants that the recombiner situation
- . with respect to the.Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident is not relevant to the admitted subcontention 10.7. Intervenors' motion to compel a response to N-5 is denied.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-44 N-6. Although questions framed'by us with respect to this
n-subcontention (10.7) (LBP-84-35, 20 NRC 887 at 906 (1984)) do not explicitly involve maintenance and surveillance of recombiners, the Board considers that the underlying thrust of all of Contention 10 goes to the operability of safety related equipment throughout plant life.
Thus N-6 is relevant. Accordingly, as with L-1 above (Interrogatory B-42), Applicants are directed to respond.
Joint Intervenors' Interrogatory B-47 This interrogatory relates to admitted, modified Contention 11, which states as follows:
Applicants have not demonstrated their basis for confidence that no unacceptable radiation releases will occur as the result of steam generator tube failures occasioned by vibration-induced fatigue cracking and bubble collapse within the Vogtle steam generators. (Id. at 908)
Applicants state that no Westinghouse-designed steam generator has experienced a tube failure due to the two mechanisms postulated above, and hence they need not respond to B-47. The interrogatory comprises requests P-1 through P-15 and document production requests Q-1 and Q-2.
However, in its submittal of March 18, 1985, Applicants address and object only to P-4, P-5, Q-1 and Q-2, despite Intervenors Motion to Compel, of March 1,1985, which moves that Applicants address B-47 fully.
We are not satisfied with this state of affairs. The wording of Contention 11 postulates tube failure from one or other of the two proposed mechanisms as a given. Whereas Applicants' confidence that history does not support this interpretation may be comforting, we
consider this to be an inadequate basis for Applicants' refusal to respond to so many of the Intervenors' P-series requests. For example, we are not aware that Applicants have requested or been granted leave not to conduct maintenance and surveillance of steam generators. Simple logic would say that these could be of interest to Intervenors. Indeed, Intervenors' P-3 request addresses this. If these procedures are not yet in final form, Applicants are to state their scope and/or nature and timely transmit them when they are available. If Applicants have not made a full and complete analysis of these procedures, they are to so state and to advise whether and when such an analysis will be available.
The fifteen P-series requests need not be ruled upon in such detail as furnished above. Our aitalysis of the discovery submittals leads us to the following determinations:
Item Disposition of Motion to Compel P-1 Answered; motion denied, l'
P-2 Outside of scope; motion denied.
P-3 See initial discussion; motion granted.
P-4 Mitigation of radiation releases within scope of contention; motion granted.
P-5 If ECCS activation makes management of a tube rupture event more difficult, Applicant is to discuss; motion granted conditionally.
P-6 If this is covered in FSAR, Applicant is to cite references; if not so covered, why not?
Motion granted.
P-7 Answered; motion denied.
P-8 Beyond scope; motion denied.
P-9 Answered; motion denied.
P-10 Moot; motion denied.
- ,e . .
.O P-11 through 15 Adequately answered; motion denied.
Q-1' For current Operators' Manual for Emergency Action, motion granted.
Q-2 To the extent practical and within the limits.
of the foregoing determinations, Applicants are to respond; motion granted conditionally.
ORDER Upon consideration of.all the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
- 1. Joint Intervenors' Motion to Compel is hereby granted to the extent set forth in the individual rulings on the disputed interrogatories, and is otherwise denied.
- 2. Applicants shall respond to the interrogatories as directed in the individual rulings on the disputed interrogatories, within the time limit set forth in the discovery schedule for answering.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD
/)h %' t'v MortonB.Marulies,Chfirman Administrat' e Judge 9#
GusAave A. Linenbyger, Jr.
<1%ilinistrative Judge W
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
~ WL Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of June, 1985.
\
. ., ,, -__ ~ . . -