ML20214L536
| ML20214L536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1986 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-608 OL-1, NUDOCS 8609100243 | |
| Download: ML20214L536 (6) | |
Text
.
4 f,()hh-Filed:
September 3, 1986 DOCHETED v
USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the 16 EP -8 P1 :01 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~-
In the Matter of
[0 fEk'*bhTAk
)
v BRANOi PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL Docket Nos.
50-443-OL-1 50-444-OL-1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
On-Site issues SAPL'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES BY NRC STAFF AND OBJECTION TO NRC STAFF MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER On August 8, 1986, SAPL filed interrogatories and reques ts f or documents to the NRC Staf f, serving them by f ederal express. Copies of the interrogatories were also served on the Board and parties.
The interrogatories are herein incorporated by reference for purposes of this motion.
On Augus t 25, 1986, the NRC staff filed a response accompanied by a Motion for Protective Order with respect to interrogatories on SAPL Supp.
6.
The Staff objected to interrogatories # 6-15, 16-19 and 24, alleging that these interrogatories are "beyond the scope of that contention and are not nee'essary to a proper resolution of the issues in this proceeding."
The NRC Staff further complains in a footnote that Interrogatory 21 is vague and not subject to reasonable interpretation.
SAPL disagrees and moves the Board pursuant to 02.740(f) to compel the NRC Staff to provide responses to all of these above-mentioned interrogatories and to~the following interrogatories in addition:
SAPL Supp. 6 NECNP I. B. 2
- 's 1,
2, 23, 25, 26
- 's 1,
5, 7,
8, 10, 11, 12, 16 8609100
?" ^ 243 860903EP
])So 3
. In support of its Motion, SAPL states as follows:
l By Board Order of September 14, 1982, the Board admitted SAPL l
Supp. 6 in which SAPL joined in and adopted as its own the content ion and basis of Contention NH-10, among others.
Subsequently, SAPL l
made clear its intent to leave the presentation of a direct case in support of Contention NH-10 to the State of New Hampshire.
In answering interrogatories, SAPL stated as follows:
In answering "No" to any of the applicants' specific interrogatories, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League does not unive its right to cross examine witnesses or urge the denial (or allowance subject to conditions) of the pending application on the basis of the topic or contention.
In other words, the Seacoast Ant i-Pollut ion League retains its right under the Prairie Island Rule, found in 2 NRC 392, footnote 6.
(In the mat t er of Nor thern S tates Power Company) SAPL further asserts that it has discernable interests in the resolution of all contentions admitted i
in the above-named proceedings.1 In the State's supplemental response to Applicants' interrogatories on April 10, 1984, New Hampshire indicated that the DCRDR and SPDS were not complete.
SAPL still holds that the DCRDR and SPDS are not complete, and, when the State filed its motion to withdraw its involvement in Contention NH-10 on June 12, 1986, SAPL t imely responded wi th an obj ect ion filed June 19, 1986 which advised the parties with ample specificity as to which areas of the DCRDR and SPDS SAPL still holds are not complete.
1See SAPL's Responses to Applicants' Interrogatories and Request For The Production of Documents, at 1.
l l
1
l' 3_
The NRC S ta f f t r i es to argue that timing of implementation was never a par t of NH-10. This is absurd on its f ace, as SAPL has argued in SAPL's Answer to NRC Staff Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention SAPL Supp. 6 filed August 28, 1986.
SAPL incorporates that argument by reference herein and would amplify it by asserting again that any deficiency stated in a contention in a licensing proceeding bears the implicit message that that is a deficiency that the contending party holds ought be resolved prior to licensing.
The Staf f objects to answcring Interrogatories 6-15 on grounds that these interrogatories relate solely to when improvements need be made.
As SAPL has argued above, timing of implementation is and has always been within the scope of this contention.
The Staff objects to interrogatories 16-19 on the grounds that it questions complieance with NUREG-0737, Items II.B.1, II.
D.
3, II.
F.
I and II.
F.2.
SAPL would clarify that SAPL inquires into these matters only insofar as they relate to the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) and the instrumentation related to these items in the control room.
The State of New Hampshire propounded interrogatories almost identical to these in 1982 and they were answered by the NRC Staff on November 30, 19822.
The Staff stated then that Staff's responses would be updated subsequent to certain reviews.
2See NRC Staf f Response to Firs t set of Interrogatories and Recuest f or Pr oduct ion o f Documen t s o f t he S ta t e o f New Hampsh i re, Nove:mber 30, 1932, at 8-9.
l The Staff objects to Interrogatory 24 on the basis that the Salem incident is beyond the scope of the contention.
SAPL is again asking about the ATWS event only insof ar as the incorporat ion of the lessons learned impact the DCRDR.
The Staff additionally objects to Interrogatory 21 on the ground that it is vague and not subject i.
to reasonable interpretation.
In response to a phone inquiry about this interrogatory f rom the NRC s taf f counsel, SAPL pointed out that l
l the ques tion arose in regard to a s tatement in a submission f rom the Applicants dated April 2,
1986, SBN - 987.
It states at Page 8, in the discussion of the Applicants' implementation plan for the SPDS, as follows:
" Additionally, a program manual is under development for the computer system methods of exchanging information."
It is quite clear that SAPL wants to know whether this program manual ment ioned by the Applicants has been reviewed by the NRC Staf f and, i f so, what the conclusions were and, i f not, the justification for not having reviewed it.
In addit ion to the interrogatories f o r wh i ch t he NRC S t a f f ha s sought a protective order, there were others for which answers were ei ther not provided or were not responsive.
The interrogatories for which the staff's answers were non-responsive were Interrogatories 1, 5, 23, 25 and 26 related to SAPL Supp. 6. and Interrogatories 1 and 5 related to NECNP I.B.2.
Each of these interrogatories sought information about documents, but the Staff did not list the name of even one document.
Though interrogatories 25 and 26 related to SAPL Supp. 6 were answered in part, the parts of the interrogatories seeking that documents be provided were not answered.
The Staf f has not sought a protective order relative to these interrogatories.
10 CFR 0 2.740(f) also provides in relevant part that:
For purposes of this paragraph, an evasive or incomplete answer or response shall be treated as a f ailure to answer or respond.
Failure to answer or respond shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is obj ectionable unless the person or party f ailing to answer or respond has applied for a protective order pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
~
The NRC Staff has also not answered Interrogatories 7, 8,
10, 11, 12, and 16 with respect to NECNP Contention I.B.2.,
nor has it sought a protective order relative to these interrogatories.
Wherefore, SAPL moves, pursuant to 10 CFR 42.740(f) that the Board enter an order compelling the NRC Staff to respond to Interrogatories 1,5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26 rela t ive to SAPL Supp. 6 and 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 16 relative to NECNP I.B.2.
Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE By Its Attorneys BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON
_//////#
/Rd b(ft' A'.
Backus P. O.
Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 (603) 668-7272 I hereby certify that copies of the above have been sent first-class postage prepaid to all parties on the service list.
Sobe'rt A.
Backus I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND SERVICE LIST 00LKETED USNHC
' Jose Sheldon J.
Wolfe, Chrm.
Thomas Dignan, Esq.
Fed. ph Flynn, Asst.Gn.Cnsl.
Emerg. Mgmt. Agcy.
Admn. Judge Ropes & Gray 500 C.St. So. West Atomic Safety & Li'86BW. -8 P t21 Franklin St.
Washington, DC 20472 USNRC Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20gggE Of SiiAtIARY g
00CKEllNG & SERVICE Office of Selectmen Dr. Jerry Harbour BRANCH Docketing & Serv. Sec.
Town of Hampton Falls Admin. Judge Office of the Secretar{
Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Lic Brd.
USNRC USNRC Washington, DC 20555' Washington, DC 20555 Shenvin E. Turk, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Jane Doughty Office of Exec. Legl. Dr.
Admin Judge SAPL USNRC Atomic Safety & Lic. Brd.
5 Market Street Wahsington, DC 2 0 5 a_.
USNRC Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Asst. Atty. General Matthew Brock, Esq.
Attorney General's OFFe State House, Sta. #6 25 Maplewood Ave.
State of New Hampshire Augusta, ME 04333 P.O. Box 360 Concord, NH 03301 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Carol Sneider, Esq., Asst.AG Diane Curran, Esq.
William S. Lord One Ashburton Place, Harmon, Weiss Board of Selectmen 19th Floor 20001-S Street NW Suite 430 Town Hall-Friend St.
Boston, MA 02108 Washingcon, DC 20009 Amesbury, MA 01913
. Richard A. Hampe, Esq.'
Maynard Young, Chainmn Sandra Gausutis
.New Hampshire Civil Defense Board of Selectmen Town of Kingston Agency 10 Central Road
' Box 1154 Hanpe & McNicholas Rye, NH 03870 East Kensington, NH 03827 35 Pleasant St.
Concord, NH 03301 Edwnrd Thcmas Mr. Robert Harrison FEMA Pres. & Chief Exec. Officer l
442 J.W. McConnack (POCH)
PSCO l
Boston, MA 02109 P.O. Box 330 l
Manchester, NH 03105 i
l Roberta Pevear State Rep.-Town of Hanpt Falls Drinkwater Road Hanpton Falls, NH 03844