ML20211A582

NRC Staff Second Suppl Response to State of UT First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Staff Reiterates & Renews Each Objection to State Discovery Requests.Related Correspondence

ML20211A582
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	08/20/1999
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	UTAH, STATE OF
References
CON-#399-20752 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9908240081
Download: ML20211A582 (9)

Text

...

""N h0PPFRPONDENCE 00CKETED USNRC August 20,1999 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFi; BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD $

In the Matter of

)

I

)

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC.

)

Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI

)

(Independent Spent Fuel

)

Storage Installation)

)

NRC STAFF'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO "THE STATE OF UTAH'S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REOUESTS DIRECTED TO THE NRC STAFF' INTRODUCTION On June 10,1999, the State of Utah (" State") filed the " State of Utah's First Set of l

Discovery Requests Directed to the NRC Staff" (" Request"), concerning the application for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("ISFSI") filed by Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. ("PFS" or " Applicant"). In its Request, the State filed (a) five general interrogatories and three document requests concerning all contentions that have been admitted forlitigation

-in this proceeding; and (b) various specific requests for admission, interrogatories, and document requests concerning five particular contentions - Utah Contentions B, C, H, R, and Security C.

9908240081 990820 PDR ADOCK 07200022 f0 C

PM

\\

L I On June 24,1999, the Staff filed its initial objections and responses to that discovery request.' Therein, the Staff responded to each of the State's discovery requests and, in 4

particular, provided responses to the State's discovery requests concerning the specific contentions identified therein --i.e., Utah Contentions B, C, H, R, and Security-C. On July 13,1999, in response to the State of Utah's request, the Staff supplemented its responses to

)

the State's discovery requests by providing, in response to interrogatories seeking to discover the basis for the Staff's denials of the State's requests for admission, a more detailed explanation of the basis for each of the Staffs denials.2 In the following supplemental response, the Staff provides funher responses to the State's general interrogatories.

OBJECTIONS The Staff hereby reiterates and renews each ofits objections to the State's discovery requests, set forth in the Staff's Initial Response of June 24,1999, as if set forth at length herein. Notwithstanding these objections to the State's Request, and without waiving these objections or its right to interpose these or other objections in the future, the Staff hereby voluntarily provides the following supplemental responses to the State's Request.'

1 8 See "NRC Staffs initial Objections and Responses to 'The State of Utah's First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to the NRC Staff" (" Initial Response"), dated June 24,1999.

2 See "NRC Staff s First Supplemental Response to 'The State of Utah's First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to the NRC Staff,'" dated July 13,1999.

8 For case of reference, the State's interrogatories and requests for admission are reproduced below, followed by the supplemental response which is being provided at this time.

r 3-I.

GENERAL DISCOVERY A.

GENERALINTERROGATORIES GENERAL INTERROGATORY NO.1 State the name, business address, and job title of each person who was consulted and/or who supplied information for responding to interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for the production of documents.

Specifically note for which interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for production each such person was consulted and/or supplied information.

If the information or opinions of anyone who was consulted in connection with your response to an intenogatory or request for admission differs from your written answer to the discovery request, please describe in detail the differing information or opinions, and indicate why such differing information or opinions are not your official position as expressed in your written answer to the request.

STAFF RESPONSE.

To the extent that this interrogatory seeks information that is exempt from disclosure under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790, including without limitation pre-decisional information, the Staff l

hereby objects thereto. Notwithstanding the above objections, information will be provided in response to this interrogatory with respect to specific contentiens, as appropriate.

l The following information is provided with respect to the specific contentions that are the subject of discovery in the State's Request. In addition to Counsel for the Staff, the following persons were consulted and/or provided information in responding to the State's l

Request:

UTAH CONTENTION K (Credible Offsite Hazardsk Dr. AmitavaGhosh Principal Engineer Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 1

Southwest Research Institute San Antonio, Texas

R

]

i L

i !

Dr. Budhi Sagar-Technical Dimetor L

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Southwest Research Institute -

San Antonio, Texas -

l GENERAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2. Identify all documents relevant to any Utah admitted contention that NRC intends to rely upon in litigating each Utah contention.

l STAFF RESPONSE. Information in response to this interrogatory will be provided L

with respect to specific contentions, as appropriate.

GENERAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3. For each admitted Utah contention, give the name, address, profession, employer, area of professional expertise, and educational and scientific experience of each person whom NRC expects to call as a witness at the hearing.

i For purposes of answering this interrogatory, the educational and scientific experience of expected witnesses may be provided by a resume of the person attached to the response.

STAFF RESPONSE. The Staff has tentatively identified the following persons as l

prospective witnesses in this proceeding, although this list is subject to possible revision l'

l prior to hearing. Statements of professional qualifications for each person listed below have -

i l

been filed previously in this proceeding.

1 l

UTAH CONTENTION B (License Needed for Intermodal Transfer Facility) l Earl P. Easton l

Section Chief, Technical Review Section A Spent Fuel Project Office l

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

n I

i b

UTAH CONTENTION G (Ouality Assurance)

Thomas O. Matula Safety Inspection Engineer Transportation and Storage Safety and Inspection Section Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

UTAH CONTENTION K (Credible Offsite Hazards)

Dr. AmitavaGhosh Principal Engineer Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Southwest Research Institute l

San Antonio,TX j

Paul W. Lain Fire Protection Engineer Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch i

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

Dr. Budhi Sagar Technical Director Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Southwest Research Institute San Antonio, Texas UTAH CONTENTION M (Probable Maximum Flood)

Dr. Steven R. Abt Professor of Civil Engineering, and Interim Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies College of Engineering Colorado State University i

Fort Collins, CO

I

. UTAH CONTENTION R (Emernency Planning) i i

Randolph L. Sullivan

- Emergency Preparedness Specialist Operator Licensing, Human Performance, and Plcnt Support Branch j

Division ofInspection Program Management j

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

l Paul W. Lain Fire Protection Engineer Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch i

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Washington, D.C.

UTAH CONTENTION SECURITY A-C (Security Plan)

Charles E. Gaskin Senior Safeguards Project Manager Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Division Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Srfeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

GENERALINTERROG ATOR Y NO. 4. For each admitted Utah contention, identify the qualifications ofeach expert witness whom NRC expects to call at the hearing, including but not limited to a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at a trial, hearing or by deposition within the preceding four years.

STAFF RESPONSE. See Response to General Interrogatory 3, supra.

GENERAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5.

For each admitted Utah contention, describe the subject matter on which each of the witnesses is expected to testify at the hearing, describe the' facts and opinions to which each witness is expected to testify, including a summary of the grounds for each opinion, and identify the documents (including

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

1 In the Matter of

)

)

I PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C.

)

Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI

)

(Independent Spent Fuel

)

Storage Installation)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF MARK S. DELLIGATTI I, Mark S. Delligatti, having first been duly sworn, do hereby state as follows:

1.

I am employed as Senior Project Manager in the Spent Fuel Licensing Section, j

Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material l

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in Washington, D.C. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached hereto.

2.

I have reviewed the foregoing "NRC Staff's Second Supplemental Response" to the " State of Utah's First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to the NRC Staff" and verify that it is true and correct to the best of my information and belief.

f//1(v) Y l

Mark S. Delliga'tti ~

~

Sworn to before me this 20* day of July 1999 NOTARY y?

'otary Public EW My commission expires OcA MS

l

! all pertinent pages or parts thereof), data or other information which each witness has reviewed and considered, or is expected to consider or to rely on for his or her testimony.

I

.S_TAFF RESPONSE. The subject matter and views of the Staff's witnesses are set forth in the "NRC Staff's Statement ofIts Position Concerning Group I Contentions," dated June 15,1999, as supplemented by the Staff's responses to the Applicant's motions for summary disposition of those contentions dated July 1,1999 (Utah Security A-C), July 16, 1999 (Utah B), July 19,1999 (Utah G, Utah M), July 22,1999 (Utah K), and July 28,1999 (Utah R).

Respectfully submitted, h

1N Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of August 1999

-