ML20147C790

Response by Intervenors Citizens to Preserve the Hudson Valley,Columbia County Survival Committee & Mid-Hudson Nuc Opponents in Opposition to Renewed Motion of NRC Staff for an Order Compelling Discovery.Cert of Svc Encl

ML20147C790
Person / Time
Site:	Green County
Issue date:	11/29/1978
From:	Kafin R KAFIN, R.J.
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812180406
Download: ML20147C790 (6)

Text

. . . , . . , . .

o- .

e

,TC I) n c m rg g 7 p g g i 96 $ :8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q h

Or BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE ) Docket No. 50-549 OF NEW YORK )

)

(Greene County Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY Citizens to Preservo the Hudson Valley ("CPHV"), Columbia County Survival Committee ("CCSC") and Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents ("MHNO") (with Shirley A. Brand) oppose the renewed motion of the NRC Staff for an Order compelling discovery.

CPHV, CCSC and MHNO have each furnished separate responses to every interrogatory asked by the NRC Staff. Therefore, there are no grounds upon which the Staff motion can be granted.

Staff alleges that the responses were defitient. However, an analysis of Staff's position reveals that StatJ's real complaints are as follows:

781218040G C<

4 4

(1) Staff does not agree with many of ' respondents' answers.

(2) The responses neglect to include the conclusions, opinions or legal theories of the respondents ' case.

(See 10 CFR S2.740 (b) (2) ) .

(3) The responses only provided the data which the respondents' had within their respective possessions, and respondents should have hired an expert and engaged in research to generate additional information.

l (4) Many responses are based upon persona.? observa-l tion and the application of nonexpert, ordinary human reasoning to observed phenomena and well known facts.

Presumably, Staff regards these as an inadequate source l l

of evidence. l (5) Rather than pointing to inadequacies in the applicant's and Staff's presentation as the basis for 1

a contention, respondents should affirmatively have ]

come up with new and different information.

i 1

Unfortunately, all of these complaints do not support l l

Staff's motion. Discovery under 10 CFR S7.740 is limited to information and documents which a party has. The 1

1 respondents have already furnished these. Staff is now, in the guise of compelling discovery, seeking to impose an additional burden (which it has no right so to impose) on respondents, namely, the burden to do original research to develop a data base with which Staff can agree, or at least a

with wtsch it feels comfortabic.

A FEW EXAMPLES l I

I 1

l A few examples will illustrate the point. l I

Example 1. Staff dislikes CCSC's response to S5a-1, dealing with airplane overflights. CCSC's members regularly observe airplane overflights, even though the applicant and Staff (who apparently have not made any personal observations) deny they exist. This is the basis for CCSC's contention on  ;

i this point. Yet Staff objects to CCSC's interrogatory response upon the mistaken belief that through interrogatories it can force CCSC to undertake an investigation to learn from what airport these airplanes are coming and how much they weigh.

Discovery is only to discover what a party knows, not to force a party to additional education.

Example 2. Staff dislikes a number of responses because they don't spell out the respondents' legal arguments. Staff l complains that respondent hasn't explained "how" a fact i

l

leads to a legal conclusion (See paragraph 1 of page 2 of Staff's " renewed motion" to compel; see also Staff's argument on MHNO's response to 1(b)-1). However, legal therories are protected by 10 CFR S2.740 (b) (2) and are not discoverable.

Example 3. The respondents ' contentions almost exclusively are that the PSAR (even after issuance of the SER) fails to provide significant information, or that the infor-mation provided either does not lead to the conclusion alleged or leads to the conclusion that the construction of the GCNPP as planned would be a most unsafe and unhealthy thing.

Of course, the basis for these contentions is the inadequate presentation made by the applicant and Staff. If they can't tell you what emergency medical arrangements have been made and with whom (see MHNO response to 1(J)-1) , or how people are going to be evacuated (see MHNO response to 1-2),

or how many people in New York City and elsewhere will be without a fresh water supply and for how long (see CCSC responce to S9-2), or what the emergency plan is and how it will work (see CCSC response to B-6-3), then the respondents need no further basis for their contentions. The interrogatory responses amply set forth this bacis. Staff cannot through 4_

interrogatories force respondents to prepare an equivalent to the SER. Staff may not agree with respondents' conclusions, but this does not make inadequate responses which use the only information which respondents have, namely, the PSAR, the SER and Supplement No. 1 to.the SER. (See CPHV responses to S.I.B.3-2, S.I.B.4-2, S.I.B.4-3, S.I.B.4-4, and S.I.B.5-1).

CONCLUSION All interrogatories having been answered, Staff's renewed motion for an Order compelling discovery should be denied.

November 29, 1978 Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Kafin f; Attorney for CPHV, CCCSC and MHNO 11 Chester Street, P.O. Box 765 Glens Falls, New York 12801 Tel..(518)793-6611 l

l

,On November 30, 1978, the. undersigned mailed the forogoing to the following:

C. Goodhope, Esq. . Albert K. Butzel, Esq.

' Andrew Chai'r man,. Atomic Safety & Butzel & Kass Licensing Board 45 Rockefeller Plaza 3320 Estelle Terrace New York, New York 10020 Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Dr. Richard F. Cole Mr. John Nickolitch Atomic Safety and Cementon Civic Association Licensing Board 70 Short Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cementon, New York 12415 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. .Ferguson Edward R. Patrick, Esq.

Professor of Nuclear New York State Dept. of Engineering Envi ronmental Conservation Howard University 50 Wolf Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12233 Honorable Donald Carson Mrs. Loretta Simon Associate Hearing Examiner Greene County Planning Department of Environmental Director Conservation Box 514 50 Wolf Road Cairo, New York 12413 Albany, N.Y. 12223 Stephen H. Lewis, Esq. Mr. H. Lee Davis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Catskill Teachers. Assoc.

Commission-Office of the West Main Street Exequtive Legal Director Catskill, New York 12414 Washington, D.C. 20555 C

Arthur R. Reuter, Esq. h$hw[ck.Rgg$f'Jhhe&

Attorney at Law Kayser Sharpe's Landing 10 East 40th Street Germantown, New York 12526 New York, New York 10016 i

Mr. Peter D. G. Brown Docketing and Service Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents Section P.O. Box 666 Office of the Secretary New Paltz, New York 12561' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Lewis R. Bennett, Esq. Hon. Edward D. Cohen, Power Authority of the Presiding Examiner State of New York Public Service Commission 10 Columbus Circle Empire State, Plaza New York, New York 10019 Agency Building Albany, New York 12223 Algird F. White, Jr., Esq. Columbia County Survival DeGraff, Foy, Conway and Committee Holt-Harris P.O. Box 27 90 State Street Germantown, New York 12526 Albany, New York 12207 .

Nancy Spiegel, Esq. AJ V

)

Public Service Commission yellyBigp10w Empire State Plaza

' Albany, New York 12233 Sworn to before me this g,/kdtCday of m

November, 1078 k 4?+by A .gu t -

Nbty y Public - Comm. Exp. 3/30/c

_