ML20150A658

Order Re Responses to NRC Interrogatories by Coalition for Safe Pwr & Consolidation.Cfsp Must:Respond W/In 14 Days to S1,S2,E1,G1,G2,G3,G8 & All Other Interrogatories;Clarify the Status of Spokesmen.Motion for Reconsideration Is Denied

ML20150A658
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	09/21/1978
From:	Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
TAC-08348, TAC-11299, TAC-13152, TAC-8348, NUDOCS 7809280147
Download: ML20150A658 (11)

Text

.~~'

ff,  %

l , b (;92 $

LNITED STATES OF AMERICA NI

NUCLEAR FIGULATORY COICESSION i

( g'2.1goJ d i C) p In the Matter of ) 6'

)

4 f^ L.

. FORIIAND GENERAL ELECIRIC CQfAhT, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-344 i )

(Trojan Nuclear Pour Plant) )

ORDER REGARDING RESPONSES TO IhTERROGATORIES, AND CONSOLIDATION ,

(Septetber 21, 1978)

I.

On Septaber 6,1978, the Staff filed a motion to ccupel Eugene Rosolic /

\ Coalition for Safe Powr (Intervenor) to respond fully to certain of the Staff's interrogatories datad August 9, 1978. This Intervenor's responses to the Staff's interrogatories wre dated August 25, 1978.

Much of the response consists of so-called "Prefatory Ccnrrnts", which are essentially a series of legal argunents not responsive to any interroga-tory. Such gratuitous argtrents, dealing with the burden of proof, limited resources, duties of URC and the Staff and the like, are not in ccepliance with the discovery procedures set forth in the Ccnmission's Rules of Practice (10 CFR 52.740). 10 CFR $2.7406, relating to interrogatories to parties, clearly provides that "Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing t'nder oath or affirmation, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer." This requiranent of separate and explicit responses to each interrogatory cannot be ciretnwented by setting up a diffuse legal I

, argtment to which vagtie references are nudo frcci time to time, l

3

.r MW#U//97 .

/

. 4 I

q '

I. '

L r [ h 3

r l [

f.

Interrogatory Si deals with the identification of and bases for any ,

disagreements'of Intervenor with the statements or conclusions contained in c the NRC Order dated May 26, 1978, or in the supporting safety evaluation prepared by the Staff. Interrogatory S2 concerns the bases of any specific i:

concerns which were not dealt with in the NRC Order and safety evaluation.

The response was that this deserves a reanalysis considering the new data that has ccee to light as of August 22. e In his request for hearing dated June 16, 1978, the Intervenor asserted that:

e "the NRC staff evaluation of the situation at the Trojan plant is not adequate. According to the Ccumission order, dated May 26, 1978, at no time did the NRC staff conduct ,

an independent on-site investigation of the control i building. Thus, the NRC staff has failed to fulfill its i obligation to the public and any order based upon the  !

<3 resent NRC staff investigation would be arbitrary.

ibrther, any order is not in our best interest and wuld not provide reasonable assurance that the health and rofety of the public wuld not be endangered. . . . It is our contention that no such (interim] operation should be allowd. The order of the Ccumission subverts its own rules and w uld  :

unnecessary danger."place the public in undue and In his amended petition dated July 23, 1978, the Intervenor clairred that:

"The occurrence of a seismic event durire interim o'acration of the Trojan Nuclear Powr Plant. ..coufd exceed tv.e safe shutdom earthquake capability of the Control Building and  !

result in the release of ionizing radiation."

i As the Staff contends, these assertions constitute attacks on the ,

adequacy of the order and evaluation, and the interrogatories ask for an ,

l l

, ~ - .- . . ...

. g A

- - - -r----- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

L .

4

- . . - \

l identification of the inadequacies and the bases for tha conclusions. If the Intervenor cannot identify the inadequacies or descr'bc the bases for i his challenges, he should simply say so. If he can, he should answer fairiy and* fully. 'Ihese conclusions of the Intervenor antedated the new infor:ra-tion of August 22, 1978, and direct and responsive answers should be given.

If the new information adda to the scope or bases of the challenges, the Intervonor can and should supplcment his responses. All parties have been directed by the Board to regard interrogatories as continuire in nature, and pursuant to 10 GR $2.740(e)(3), they shall supplerent their responses

\ to include information thereafter acquired.

Interrogatory El involves the alleged need for the preparation of EIS.

Interrogatory E2 asks whether it is contended that the proposed codifica-tions will "significantly affect the quality of the huran enviroment",

and if so the bases for such a contention. D e response was to see the Prefatory ccanents. Rese ecmrents assert, acong other things, that it is the responsibility of NRC to carefully consider the envircrrrantal aspects of proposed actions, but they do not set forth the factual inforeation

• sought by these interrogatories. The replies must be viewd as evasive and unresponsive.

Interrogatory G1 involved the Intervenor's position on factual state-mcnts contained in specified docurents. As to a license evcat report (ER) and a supple:xnt, the response was that it was still under investiga-tion, without indicating by shczn or when the investigation would be

~

conpleted. Since the Intervenor wan given these docunents on July 2.4, 1978, d- -

. 4

~

l '

4 -- -

i I

he should give as complete a response as he can at this time, and supplcment it if and when the alleged investigation is completed. Re rcmaining doctments contain factual infonaation concerning the nature of the control building design errors, the method used to reanalyze its structural capacity, and the effects of the proposed modifications as well as the design criteria to be utilized for the nodifications. The Intervenor responds scmewhat disingenuously by treating the interrogatories as though he wns asked to ecmncnt on the minutes of meetings, says that these meetings are held in Washington, D. C., and states that he does not have the funds to fly there

. nor would he want to due to the increase in radiation exposure. W e Staff sus making a serious effort to identify the statcccnta or analyses in the referenced doctcents with which the Intervenor disagrees or that he contends are inaccurate or inadequate, and to discover the bases therefor.

Direct and responsive answers should be provided.

Interrogatory G2 involved the Intervenor's understanding of the meaning and significance of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) term, and its relationship to interim operation. Interrogatory G3 asked for the Intervcnor's understanding of the nature and significance of the defects in the original analysis of tin control building. We responses were simply to see the prefatory cocments. Ituever, in his amended petition, l the Intervenor had asserted that the "rr.currence of an earthquake durire interim operatica.. .could exceed the safe shutdown eartiquake capability of the Control Building." he Staff is entitled to ascertain the bases I ,

,L

, ~ ~ . _ _ , .

. . ...y i

e ,

, . ,c a ,

9 5- 3,

. h for these assertions. These interrogatories do not require Intervenor to engage in extensive research or to ecxnpile data, but merely ask for an i l elaboration of his own understanding and reasoning. Full and direct responses should be made to these interrogatories. . a Interrogatory G8 asks for the identification of all books, docunents and papers that the Intervenor will employ in presenting his direct case.

The reply, to see prefatory cmments, is evasive and unresponsive.

Interrogatory G9 seeks a similar idene.ification of books and docuncnts l to be used in the cross-examination of prospective Staff witnesses. The .

response. that the Intervenor has not seen the Staff testimony or the final modification, is proper at this tica. However, the response should be supplemented after this infonnation has beccme available.

The Intervenor is directed to provide full and responsive answers under oath or affirmation et 7gatories S1, S2, El, E2, G1, G2, G3 and G8 within 14 days after . . .vice of this Order. Suppicmental responses shall be filed to include inforantion thereafter acquired, pursuant to the provisions of 10 TR $2.740(e)(3).

There ranain several nutters affecting the status of the Coalition For Safe Power (CFSP) which nust be clarified in writing. At the first Special Prehearing Conference on July 24, 1978, Mr. Rosolie was asked whether CFSP was a bona fide organization, with ucre than one mcInber sb possessed the requisite interest to qualify as an intervening party. He i stated that it was, and agreed to supply in writing the names and a 6 rw-- - #%.. e- a 'ye 4

addresses of several mmbers possessing the requisite interest. This infor-mation has never been received. .

I Relying upon the representation of Mr. Rosolic that he "as a mm.ber and officer of the GSP have been anpowered by trarbers to represent their interest in this matter", the Board granted the petition filed "On bchalf of myself, Eugene Rosolic, and the Coalition For Safe Power (CFSP)." By its Order of July 27, 1978, the Board provided that the request for hearing and intervention, filed by "Eugene Rosolie, acting on his own behalf and as a representativa of the Coalition For Safe Power (CFSP)...is granted on ,

\ the condition that one spokesman be designated to participate directly in these proceedings, and that one other umber of CFSP be pemitted to sit at counsel table" (Order, p. 3). The participation of CFSP was conditioned as follows:

"3. The Coalition For Safe Power shall represent the interests of its mmbers and petitioners through a single spokesman, with one officer or mmber pemitted to sit at counsel table" (Order, p. 9).

It was the intention of the Board to grcnt Mr. Rosolie a dual role, that uf directly representing both himself and CFSP. This was in effect a consolidation of parties, pursuant to our desire to reduce the nurber of voices asserting substantially the same interests and issues, and thereby restricting duplicative or repetitive evidence and argument (10 CFR SS2.714(c),

2.715(a). Apparently, Mr. Pasolic takes the same view of his status,as he filed a response to the Staff's interrogatories as "Eugene Rosolie, intervening on his om behalf and on behalf of the Coalition For Safe l

1

}

4

4 i

. o.

7-  ;

l

, Power (GSP)." 'Ibic response was also signed "Eugene Rosolie, pro se and ,

on behalf of the Coalition For Safe Power" (Intervenor Coalition For Safe Power Response to Staff's Interrogatories, pp. 1, 4).

However, at the afternoon session of the second Special Prehearing Conference held on August 14, 1978, a self-proclaimed representative of -

i

GSP (Susan M. Garrett) persistently endeavored to intervene and partici- '

i

/,> pate in the proceedings being conducted by the Board. In the interest of i orderly hearings, the Board never intended for different individuals I

ostensibly representing Eugene Rosolie/GSP to shuttle in and out of ,

different sessions, at least not without prioi leave granted pursuant to written motion and a showing of good cause. Accordingly, Eugene Rosolie/

GSP are directed to file the following inforcation in writing:

1. We names, addresses and descriptions of interest of several other umbers of GSP.

2. h e names, addresses and titles of all Atly designated (not "acting") officers of that organization.

3. A clarification of the status of Eugene Rosolie as the .

sole designated representative or spokestran of CFSP in

, this proceeding.

d

.. f A

1

T t

k , '

I II.

I i

on August 9, 1978, the Staff served interrogatories on the Consolidated l Intervenors (Nina Bell, C. Gail Parson and David B. PrCny). A response dated August 19,1978 (but postmarked August 31,1978) was filed by Nina Bell, one of these intervemrs. 'Ihis response does not purport to be on behalf of all of these intervenors, but is stated to be "on her cr-n behalf",

and asserts that it was "impossible for the three intervenors to prepare this cbcument together due to the great distance Intervenor McCoy mild

, have to travel / phone in order to do so."

i

,l By our Order of July 27, 1978, intervention by these three individuals ,

', was expressly condition upon than being "consolidated as intervenor parties for all purposes in this proceeding. They shall participate directly in all conferences and hearings through a single spokesman to be designated by thcm" (p. 8) . As a result of this consolidation for all purposes, it is incurbent upon these three intervenors to coordinate their responses so that the answers to interregatories reflect the group response of the Consolidated Intervenors as a single party to this proceeding. The Staff's f cution to ccepel a consolidated response to interrogatories is granted.

Nina Bell's excuse for a failure to ccordinate responses is untenable.

- 'Ihe "great distance" which Mr. McCoy resides fran the Trojan facility is 200 miles, and he has alleged that he is frequently in its vicinity in conjunction with his business of tuning and repairing schcol pianos, as wil as frequcnt travels to the area for "recreational and envirormentally oriented purposes" (Anended Petition, p. 1). As the Appeal Board noted in l

• I

.(

i M

( . .

, r

. 1

-l h I

j ,

, ..j r t.

deciding Mr. McCoy's recent appeal frcm consolidation, 'Mr. McCoy can, of .

I course, connunicate with the other intervenors by mail or telephone and, I additionally, if necessary can arrange to meet with thcm when in the vicinity of their residences on other business" (AIAB-496, Septaber 12, 1978, slip opinion ftn. 3, p. 5) . Ms. Bell does not assert that any attecpt to meet ,

with the other intervenors to coordinate their joint response. Nor does she advance any reason why she could not have coordinated with Ms. Parson, who ,

also lives in the same city (Portland, Or6gon) that she does.

- It should be further noted that Ms. Bell's response contains a .

. "Prefatory Cmments" statment that is identical with that filed by Eugens Rosolie and discussed in Section I, supra. It is wholly inadequate as a response for the same reasons discussed above, as are the unresponsive answers which are also very similar to those of Mr. Rosolie.

'Ihe Consolidated Intervenors are directed to file a grcup response to the Staff's interrogatories within 14 days frcm the date of service of this Order.

III.

- On August 10, 1978, the Staff filed interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon the Intervenor Columbia Environmental Council.

Under our rules, responses should have been filed by August 30,1978 (10 CFR

$$2.710,2.740b). No responses by this Intervenor have been filed, and J

the Staff has filed a motion to ecupel responses, t .

.{

}

• ew oe , - . . ..

m

v . ,

3- .

} .

t In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 52.740:f), the Intervenor Colunbia Environmental Council is ordered to respond directly and fully to l the Staff's interrogatories dated August 10, 1978.

s W.

'Ihe Board has recently received a copy of an undated document filed by Intervenors Gail Parson and Nina Bell, entitled Objection to Order Concern-in6 Requests For Hearing And Intervention Petitions And Request For Revision Of Order Or Certification. Apparently these objections were not l

served upon the Board or the Staff.N These two Intervenors object to their consolidation with David B. McCoy by the Order of July 27, 1978, although they do not object to their consolidation with each other.

The reasons for this consolidation are set forth at pages 6-8 of our prior order, and we adhere to than. Objection is further made because of the alleged difficulties in coordinating with Mr. McCoy because he resides 200 miles fran the objectors. 'Ihe inadequacy of this ground for objection is discussed in Section II, suora. -

There has been no showing of any effort to camunicate with Mr. McCoy by telephone, mail, or in the course of his frequcnt visits to the Portland M In its notion for extension of time in which to respond, dated

- Septanber 20, 1978, the Staff indicated that it was not aware of the existence of this document until Septarber 18, 1978. In view of the

disposition, w make of these objections and of the Staff's viea on this consolidation set forth in its responses to interrogatories of

Ihvid B. McCoy and the Consolidated Intervonors, filed on Septanber 18, 1978, we dean it unmcessary to require any further response by the Staff.

1 j s I 1

, t

j -

I * .

l 1

l area. In addition, Mr. McCoy and Ms. Parson both atteniM the special pre-hearing conference held in Portland on August 14, 1978, a"d there was no i discernible difficulty in having their views freely expressed by their l designated spokesnan. And as the Appeal Board has observed, "nothing in the Licensing Board's order will prevent either Mr. McCoy or the other intervenors fran later endeavoring to obtain full or partial relief fran the provisions of that order should the consolidation turn out in practice to be necessarily and significantly prejudicial to the protection of their interests" (AIAB-496, Septanber 12, 1978, slip opinien pp. 5-6). 'Ihe cution for reconsideration or certification is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FCR 'nE A'ITIC SAFE 1Y KO LI NSU G ECAFD

,1 g h ;ff [, b^ Sig

!Parshall E. Miller, Chairfan Ihted at Bethesda, M1ryland this 21st day of Septanber 1978.

l e

.