ML20147J254

Applicant Objections to Intervenor Interrogatories to Applicant & Motion for Protective Order.B Bursey Intervenor.Interrogatories Irrelevant.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20147J254
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	10/02/1978
From:	Conner T, Wetterhahn M CONNER, MOORE & CORBER
To:
References
NUDOCS 7810270313
Download: ML20147J254 (10)

Text

'

a (j:

.' 'E4 FI]L30TC DOCUMENT Ropy cb

/

TEEE i

_: OCT 3197.8 ',

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA eUda,w NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & ) Dockec No. 50-395 ~

GAS COMPANY, ET AL. )

) l (Virgil C. Summer )

Nuclear Station) )

l APPLICANT'S-OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENOR'S INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Introduction I

~ l On September 15, 1978, Intervenor, Brett Bursey trans-mitted "Intervenor's Interrogatories To Applicant" to counsel for the Applicant, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company. j For the reasons stated hereafter, Applicant objects to certain of these interrogatories as specified below. Further, I l

Applicant moves for a protective order pursuant to 10 CFR S2.704(c) that this discovery to which objection is taken not be had.

The basic reason for our objections and motion is that i the' interrogatories propounded are not relevant to the con-tentions granted.by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l

(" Licensing -Board") to Mr. Bursey as issues in this pro-ceeding.and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the

~

discovery of admissible evidence concerning his contentions. ,

73/o27c3 g

2-LMr. Bursey's admitted contentions ~have been set forth by the Licensing

• Board-in its Prehearing Conference Order dated April 24,L1978. .

It.cannot be disputed that discovery is limited to'the scope of'the' contentions admitted-in the proceeding. See l

, /10 C.F.R. S2. 740 (b) (1) and Allied-General Nuclear Service I

(Barnwell' Fuel Receiving and' Storage Station), LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489, 490-2 (1977), Boston Edison Company, et al. -

'(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2) LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579 at 587, 590 (1975), Cincinnati Gas & Electric' Company, (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station) Docket No. 50-358, Order Sustaining Applicant's Objections to Certain.Interroga-tories and Overruling Objections to Other' Interrogatories Filed by Dr. David B. Fankhauser, dated February 3, 1977 (unpublished) and Order Sustaining Objections to Certain Interrogatories from Intervenor David B. Fankhauser dated ,

September:23, 1977 (unpublished).

Discussion of Specific Interrogatories The first part of Interrogatory 3 asks when the Ap-plicant plans to begin receiving nuclear fuel. Such an

' inquiry is beyond the scope of any granted contention in this. proceeding, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery.of admissible evidence, and is-objectionable.

However,,for the information of the Intervenor, the first nuclear _ fuel was received onsite on September 19, 1978.

9 n

E-

v ,

i

, --3E- r 7 ,.

~ Applicant /will' respond to the remainder of this interroga-

~

'1

l l

tory. i

. Interrogatory-5 asks whyLthe spent. fuel handling buildingc" foundation'[was] poured on dirt rather than bedrock'" . This' inquiry ~ bears no relation to any admitted.

-contention,~is not reasonably calculated to lead to the  ;

discovery of admissible evidence and is objectionable. The r 1

. seismic design of'the structures:at the Summer Station are '

not at-issue. .The onlyfcontention which could conceivably be related, Contention A4(a), speaks only to a description of seismic activity in the area and not to the seismic  ;

t design of the Station. However, for the information of' '

Mr. Bursey,.as discussed in FSAR S2.5.4 10.4, the foundation '

'for the fuel". handling-building is supported on caissons em-bedded-in bedrock. ,

Interrogatory 7 inquires as to the amount of the debt >

l

owed to'the South Carolina Public Service Authority ("Au-

.thority") "for material and equipment used by the Applicant for construction of the Fairfield Pump Storage Facility."

The Fairfield Project is owned entirely by the App 3icant and was financed inciapendently of the Summer Station. The.

Authority ;isinot anL owner and there is no " debt" owed t.he Authority:for that project. This interrogatory is clearly beyond the scope of thel issues in this proceeding, is not.

1

.1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible-a, evidence and therefore:should be denied.

9 l

., t L 3

Interrogatory 9 asks if the reactor vessel has been

. moved since it was originally set. There.is no relationship ..

between~this question and any admitted contention. This inquiry is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Assuming arguendo that he conceives this matter somehow related to Contention A9 regarding quality control, Mr. Bursey was to have produced all his witnesses related to quality assurance matters at his Au'- l gust 2-3, 1978 deposition. Questions related to the reactor )

i vessel were never raised by either Mr. Bursey or the other witnesses appearing on those days and we submit, Mr. Bursey is precluded from beginning yet another fishing expedition. .

For-the information of Mr. Bursey, after completion of l l

shimming procedures, no movement of the reactor vessel has 1

occurred. l Interrogatory 18 relating to the competitiveness of the Summer Station with coal-fired plants, Contention 19 related to stopping work and converting the Summer facility to "a coal fired boiler," Interro atory 20 related to the Appli-l cant's " reserve electrical capacity," Interrogatory 21 l related to "KW production capacity of Applicant's inactiva generation facilities" and the retirement schedule for existing generating plants, Interrogatory 22 inquiring as to the generating and reserve capacity of the Applicant, In-terrogatory 24 inquiring as to " cost projections of the restoration of the applicant's inactive generating faci-lities" and' Interrogatory 25 relating to the sale of elec- ,

).

t

t trical output outside the State of South Carolina, attempt to inquire into matters which are clearly not at issue in this proceeding, are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and are objectionable.

In its Prehearing Conference Order dated April 24, 1978, the Board specifically rejected profferred Contention Al relating to need for the facility and the assertion that substitution of power from the Summer Station for those of other units would not be economically or environmentally cost-beneficial.

Such a contention was specifically excluded by the Board which stated that its consideration began "with a postulated completed plant that has been constructed under an NRC permit after a determination that the cost-benefit balance favored the construction." Thus all these interrogatories fall outside the scope of an admitted contention and are objectionable.

Interrogatory 23 asks that the Applicant make available all correspondence between it and the Alden Research Labora-tory. We believe that this request is unduly broad. Even if Mr. Dursey is limiting this interrogatory to correspondence relating to the Alden Research Laboratory's thermal modeling of Monticello Reservoir, it is still defective. Inasmuch as the results of this modeling were submitted to the State of South Carolina, the NPDES permit issuing authority for the facility, and forms the basis for thermal limitations imposed upon the Summer Station, the NRC is prohibited from examining

I the basis upon which such NPDES permit was issued. The

, Board'-has already recognized in its.Prehearing Conference

• l Order of April 24, 1978 at pages 6-8, that it must assume administrative regularity and it is for the State to inter-pret and enforce its-own permits. Thus, even interpreted narrowly, the requested discovery is objectionable. l l

Interrogatory 28 inquires into the legal fees and  ;

associated costs for the licensing proceedings and inter-vention. Applicant submits that such inquiry is beyond the l scope of any contention and does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

. Interrogatory 31 requests "all files and related documents the Applicant has on the Intervenor and the P

Palmetto Alliance." Such request is completely unrelated to any contention and does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, we would note that the Palmetto Alliance is not even a party to this proceeding.

The second part of Interrogatory 32 requests an identifi-cation of how many of the people employed at the Summer plant during normal operation will be security personnel. This portion:of the interrogatory is completely irrelevant to any admitted contention and is not reasonably calculated to lead _to admissible evidence in this proceeding. Applicant further objects to Mr. Bursev's attempt to interject the issue of industrial security into this proceeding for the

first time by way of these interrogatories. Therefore, Applicant objects to this portion of the-contention.

Interrogatory 33 inquires as to whether the Applicant is capable of reducing the level of worker exposure by a factor of 10 (i.e. from a maximum of 5 rems a year to a maximum of .5 rem a year). This interrogatory would require the Applicant to undertake an economic and feasibility study of reducing occupational exposures. Applicant has carried out no such analysis at'this time. While a party must fur-nish whatever information is available to it,,it is not re-quired to undertake research or compile data not readily known to it. Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generat-ing Station, Unit 2) LBP-78-30, 1 NRC 579, 583-5 (1975);

Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-556 and 50-557, l

" Memorandum and Order" (May 25, 1977) (unpublished) ; Portland 1

General-Electric Company (Trojan Nuclear Plant), Docket No.  ;

50-344, " Order" (November 17, 1977) (unpublished) . Thus this interrogatory is objectionable.

1 l

Interrogatory 41 asks if the " applicant's Board of '

Directors and Stockholders [have] been advised of the information on long-term radiation effects as reflected by the intervenor's contention ten." Initially Applicant does not know what "inforntation" is contained in Contention 10.

At most this statement is a naked assertion without foun-dation. Moreover, we cannot see how dissemination of any "information" could reasonably be calculated to lead to sub-

8'.-

,- stantive i'nformation admissible in this procee' ding related to Contention 10.

1 Interrogatory 42 is'the worst type of "when did you '

stop beating your wife" question. It asserts that cancer rates around nuclear facilities are continuing to rise, a totally unsupported premise which makes the entire inter-rogatory hypothetical and unanswerable in its present form.

~

Applicant objects to this interrogatory. -

Finally, Interrogatory 43 which asks "[w] hat prompt'ed the applicant to 'go nuclear,'" is totally beyond the scope of any admitted contention, cannot reasonably be expected to l

1ead to admissible' evidence, and is therefore objectionable. l Conclusion '

. l For.the foregoing reasons, the stated interrogatories are objectionable and Applicant's motion for a protective order should be granted. ,

1 Respectfully submitted, '

CONNER, MOORE & CORBER 3  !

Troy B. Conner, Jr. 1 Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant

October-2, 1978 l

1

~

. I 1

c n, , .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~

n #

-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & ) Docket No. 50-395 GAS COMPANY, et al. )

)

(Virgil C. Summer Nuclear )

Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Objections to Intervenor's Protective Order," Interrogatories to Applicant and Motion for a

l

.ated October 2, 1978, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in (

the United States mail this 2nd day of October, 1978: l Ivan W. Smith, Esq. George Fischer, E.;q.

. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Vice President anc General

Licensing Board Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory . . . .

South Carolina ~ Electric & Gas.

Commission Company Washington, D. C. 20555 .;

Post Office Box 764 '

Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Dr. Frank F. Hooper Member, University of Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.

Michigan Camp Filibert Roth Office of the Executive Legal Director Iron River, Michigan 49335 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Washington, D. C. 20555 Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing . Board Panel Mr. Brett Allen Bursey U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Route 1, Box 93-C Commission Little Mountain, South Carolina Washington, D. C. 20555 29075 Chairman, Atomic Safety.and Mr. Chase R. Stephens Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Secretary

. Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

. Washington, D. C.. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Richard P. Wilson, Esq.

Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. S.C. Attorney General's Office 20555 P. O. Box 11549 Columbia, S.C. 29?11 he i M a1 P l  ? ' l WreceU:LobnnermJr. 1

. . V . 61 .

8'-

1

~stantive :informationiadmissible in this proceeding related [

u. . to Coritention 10. O ,

. Interrogatory 42 is'the worst type of "when did you stop~ beating your wife" question. It asserts that' cancer

rates'around nuclear facilities are continuing to rise, a totally unsupported premise which'makes the entire inter- ,

. rogatory hypothetical and unanswerable in its present form.

I Applicant objects to this interrogatory.

l Finally,-Interrogatory 43 which asks "[w] hat prompted theiapplicant to 'go nuclear,'" is totally beyond the scope of any admitted contention, cannot reasonably be expected to lead -to admissible evidence, and is therefore objectionable.

Conclusion For the foregoing' reasons, the stated interrogatories are objectionable and Applicant's motion for a protective '

- order should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER, MOORE & CORBER Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel ~for the Applicant

.  : October 2~,;1978'

'I b

i;

' { ,[ {.'

, l: h 4 t L

' + - , c._, ,