ML18025A056

Applicants Answer to Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Intervenors Answers to First Round Applicant Interrogatories, and Motion to Compel Discovery

ML18025A056
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	07/16/1979
From:	Silberg J, Yuspeh A Pennsylvania Power & Light Co, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML18025A056 (9)

Text

lb UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safet and Licensin Board In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6 LIGHT CO.

and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos.

50-387 50-388 APPLICANTS'NSWER TO "ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER INTERVENORS'NSWERS TO FIRST ROUND APPLICANT INTERROGATORIES" AND MOTION TO COMPEL'ISCOVERY On June 29, 1979, intervenor Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power

("ECNP") filed a document entitled "Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Intervenors'nswers to First Round Applicant Interrogatories".

Notwithstanding its title, this document did not set forth answers to "Applicants'irst Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power" and "Applicants'irst Request to Intervenor Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power for the Production of Documents", is-sued on May 25, 1979.

Instead, ECNP's "Answers" set forth a blanket objection to Applicants'iscovery requests and moved the Licensing Board to issue a protective order which would re-lieve ECNP of any responsibility to respond to those requests.

Applicants respectfully oppose ECNP's motion, and request that the Board issue an order compelling ECNP to respond to Appli-cants'ay 25, 1979 discovery requests within ten (10) days from the date of issuance of such an Order by the Board.

\\Q 4~

In its filing, ECNP characterizes the Applicants'iscovery requests as "extraordinarily burdensome, oppressive, and utterly pointless" and bases its request for a protective order on this characterization.

Applicants'iscovery requests are not burdensome, nor were they intended to impose any undue burden on the intervenor.

Rather, the interrogatories and request for documents were in-tended to seek out the basis for intervenors'ontentions and information of which ECNP is aware relevant to those contentions.

This information is necessary if Applicants are to address ECNP's concerns during the hearings.

" Additionally, the discovery is intended to determine whether ECNP is presently aware of any new information or any information that is inconsistent with that presently known to the Applicants.

Without such knowledge, Appli-cants cannot know which issues need to be addressed at the evi-dentiary hearings.

ECNP's answers should help define the areas of dispute between the parties and avoid the needless wasting of time litigating issues over which there is no dispute.

ECNP's filing explicitly indicates that it has in its possession con-siderable information and documents.

While ECNP states that "the majority of information in the possession of ECNP" consists of l

"information, documents, etc.

. in the public domain,"

ENCP

Answers, p.

2, that fact is of no use to Applicants unless Appli-cants are told what this information is and how it relates to the contentions.

Even if Applicants'iscovery request could be considered burdensome, it would not justify ECNP's across-the-board refusal

to answer

~an of Applicants'nterrogatories or document request.

The Appeal Board has clearly ruled that such a blanket objection cannot stand.

From the outset, appellants steadfastly maintained that compliance with any por-tion of the discovery requests would en-tail an undue burden--a position adhered to even after the Licensing Board had sub-stantially reduced the scope of the dis-covery.

But, as should have been perfectly

apparent, some of the documents could have been furnisheK, and some. of the interroga-tories answered, without the imposition of any significant burden.

In this connection, it is obvious, of course, that compliance with a discovery request invariably will re-quire some exertion of effort.

But it is equally obvious that a claim of undue burden (even if advanced by a non-party to the litigation) must be founded on much more than that some expense or inconvenience may have to be incurred in responding to the discovery.

We think that it is the manifest obli-gation of persons against whom discovery is sought to refrain from asserting a blanket claim of burdensomeness which neither is nor can be substantiated..

In the future, a

licensing board confronted with an all-en-compassing indiscriminate claim of burden will be justified in rejecting the claim in its entirety upon a finding of lack of merit with respect to at least one of the discovery items.

Further, the board need not consider whether a response to a particular item would be burdensome

unless, with respect to that item, specific reasons for the claim are as-signed.

Consumers Power Co.

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-122, 6

AEC 322, 325, fn.

14 (1973)

. 'Original emphasis.)

To avoid the necessity of ECNP's supplying information which it has already made available in this proceeding, Applicants have reviewed the "Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Answers to

First Round NRC Staff Interrogatories" to determine whether ECNP has answered Applicants'iscovery requests in any of the ECNP answers to NRC staff discovery.

In some cases, Applicants'n-terrogatories are sufficiently similar to the Staff's that an answer to the Staff's would suffice.

In a few of these instances, ECNP's answer is adequate and Applicants therefore withdraw their corresponding interrogatories.*

In the remainder of those cases,**

ECNP has failed to adequately answer the Staff's interrogatories and thus the information Applicants seek remains unavailable.

Section 2.740(f) of the Commission regulations provide that if a party upon whom interrogatories or a request for production of documents is served fails to respond or object to the request, or any part thereof, the party submitting the discovery requests may move the presiding officer for an order compelling a response in accordance with the request.

Applicants respectfully submit that ECNP has failed to show an adequate basis for failing to answer Applicants'iscovery requests.

Applicants have therefore requested that the Board deny ECNP's motion for protective order, and that the Board issue an order pursuant to 10 CFR g2.740(f) compelling ECNP to respond to Applicants'iscovery requests

• Applicants'nterrogatories 4A-2, 7(a)-1, 7(c) -2 and 19-1.

(These correspond to Staff interrogatories S-4.1, S-7.2, S-7.12 and 13, and G-1 respectively.)

• • Applicants'nterrogatories 1A-1 (S-l.l), 1A-2 (S-1.6),

1B-1(a)

(S-1 13')

g 1B 2

(S 1 12) g 1B 3

(S 1 13) 3 1

(S 3

~ 2) p 3

2 (S

3 1) p 3-9 (S-3.3),

5-1 (S-5.1),

6-1 (S-6.1),

7 (a).-2 (S-7.1),

7 (b) -2 (S

7 4) g 7 (c) 3 (S

7 ll) 8 1

(S 8

1) g 9

2 (S

9

~ 2) g 9

3 (S

9 1) g 9-5 (S-9.5 and 9.6).

(Corresponding Staff interrogatories are in parentheses.)

(except for those which Applicants have withdrawn) within ten (10) days from the date of the Board's order.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW/

PITTMAN~

POTTS 6

TROWBRIDGE By Jay E..Silberg Alan R. Yuspeh 1800 M Street, N.

W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 (202) 331-4100 Dated:

July 16, 1979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Safet and Licensin Board In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC (Susquehanna Steam Units 1 and 2)

)

)

LIGHT CO.

)

)

COOPERAT IVE g INC

)

)

Electric Station,

)

)

Docket Nos.

50-387 50-388 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "Applicants r

Answer to 'Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Intervenors'nswers to First Round Applicant Interrogatories'nd Motion to Compel Discovery" were served by deposit in the U. S. Mail, first

class, postage prepaid, this 16th day of July, 1979, to all those on the attached Service List..

Jay E. Sz.lberg Dated:

July 16, 1979

UNITED STATES OF AHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COHHISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Hatter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER and 3~ LGEHENY ELECTRIC (Susquehanna Steam Units 1 and 2)

)

)

& LIGHT COHPANY

)

)

COOPERATIVE, INC.

)

Electric Station,

)

)

Docket Nos.

50-387 50-388 SERVICE LIST Atomic Sa fe" y Board U.

S. Nuclear Washington, D.

and Licensing Panel Regulatory Commiss'n C.

20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 James H. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing

, Board Panel U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Hr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Sa.fety and Licensing Board Panel U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'.

C.

20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 r

Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvan'a 16801 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates c/o Gerald Schultz, Esquire 500 South River Street Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 Hrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairman The Citizens Against Nuclear Danger Post Office Box 377 R.

D.

1 Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603 Hs. Colleen Harsh 558 A, R.

D.

54 Ht. Top, Pennsylvania 18707 Hr.

Thoma.s H. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Env'ironmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P.

O.

Box 2063 Har isburg, Pennsylvania 17120 tq

~h.

0