Detroit Edison Objections to Citizens for Employment & Energy Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents Served on 790525.Certificate of Svc EnclML19225A515 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Fermi |
---|
Issue date: |
06/25/1979 |
---|
From: |
Voigt H LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE |
---|
To: |
|
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7907190485 |
Download: ML19225A515 (14) |
|
Similar Documents at Fermi |
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARNRC-99-0093, Comment on Prs 10CFR30,31,32,170 & 171 Re Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Matl. Licensee Unclear Whether Requirements Apply to Holder of Operating License1999-10-12012 October 1999 Comment on Prs 10CFR30,31,32,170 & 171 Re Requirements for Certain Generally Licensed Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct Matl. Licensee Unclear Whether Requirements Apply to Holder of Operating License NRC-99-0080, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Emergency Plans.Detroit Edison Strongly Urges NRC to Not Issue Amend to 10CFR50.471999-09-13013 September 1999 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Consideration of Potassium Iodide in Emergency Plans.Detroit Edison Strongly Urges NRC to Not Issue Amend to 10CFR50.47 NRC-99-0071, Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083, Content of Ufsar,Iaw 10CFR50.71(e), Dtd Dec 19981999-04-30030 April 1999 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1083, Content of Ufsar,Iaw 10CFR50.71(e), Dtd Dec 1998 ML20205A7871999-03-26026 March 1999 Error in LBP-99-16.* Informs That Footnote 2 on Pp 16 of LBP-99-16 Should Be Deleted.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990329 ML20205A8321999-03-26026 March 1999 Initial Decision (License Granted to Sp O'Hern).* Orders That O'Hern Be Given Passing Grade for Written Portion of Reactor Operator License Exam Administered on 980406.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990326.Re-serve on 990330 ML20202B1561999-01-28028 January 1999 Memorandum & Order (Required Filing for Sp O'Hern).* Petitioner Should Document,With Citations to Record, Precisely Where He Disagrees or Agrees with Staff by 990219. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 990128 NRC-98-0154, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Detroit Edison Fully Supports Comments Being Submitted on Proposed Rule by NEI1998-12-21021 December 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50,52 & 72 Re Changes,Tests & Experiments.Detroit Edison Fully Supports Comments Being Submitted on Proposed Rule by NEI ML20198B1131998-12-17017 December 1998 Memorandum & Order (Request for an Extension of Time).* Orders That Staff May Have Until 990115 to File Written Presentation.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981217 NRC-98-0184, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65, Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps. Expresses Concern That Proposed Rule,As Drafted,Will Impose Significant Regulatory Burden on NPPs Which Have Already Developed Risk Programs1998-12-14014 December 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50.65, Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npps. Expresses Concern That Proposed Rule,As Drafted,Will Impose Significant Regulatory Burden on NPPs Which Have Already Developed Risk Programs ML20197J8971998-12-14014 December 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Sp O'Hern Written Presentation.* Staff Requests That Motion for Extension of Time Until 990115 to File Written Presentation Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20154M8281998-10-20020 October 1998 Federal Register Notice of Hearing.* Grants Sp O'Hern 980922 Request for Hearing Re Denial of O'Hern Application to Operate Nuclear Reactor.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981020 ML20154M9471998-10-19019 October 1998 Memorandum & Order (Establishing Schedule for Case).* Grants Request for Hearing Filed on 980922 by O'Hern & Orders O'Hern to Specify Exam Questions to Be Discussed at Hearing by 981103.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981019 ML20154K8601998-10-14014 October 1998 NRC Staff Response to Request for Hearing Filed by Applicant Sp O'Hern.* Request Re Denial of Application for Senior Operator License Filed in Timely Manner.Staff Does Not Object to Granting Request.With Certificate of Svc ML20154F0551998-10-0808 October 1998 Designation of Presiding Officer.* Pb Bloch Designated as Presiding Officer & Rf Cole Designated to Assist Presiding Officer in Hearing Re Denial of Sp O'Hern RO License.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 981008 NRC-98-0035, Comment on Draft RG DG-5008 (Rev 2 to Reg Guide 5.62), Reporting of Safeguards Events. Util Endorses Industry Comments Submitted by NEI1998-03-0909 March 1998 Comment on Draft RG DG-5008 (Rev 2 to Reg Guide 5.62), Reporting of Safeguards Events. Util Endorses Industry Comments Submitted by NEI NRC-98-0010, Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1070, Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for Use in NPP1998-02-17017 February 1998 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1070, Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial Grade Items for Use in NPP NRC-98-0030, Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane Re Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public1998-01-16016 January 1998 Comment Opposing PRM 50-63A by P Crane Re Prophylactic Use of Potassium Iodide for General Public NRC-98-0012, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 & 70 Re Exemption from Criticality Accident Requirements. Detroit Edison Concerned That Proposed Changes Will Not Provide Sufficient Flexibility Meeting Regulations to Criticality Monitoring1998-01-0202 January 1998 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 & 70 Re Exemption from Criticality Accident Requirements. Detroit Edison Concerned That Proposed Changes Will Not Provide Sufficient Flexibility Meeting Regulations to Criticality Monitoring NRC-97-0096, Comment on Draft Reg Guides DG-1061,1062,1064 & 1065,draft SRP Chapter 19 Rev L ,chapter 3.9.7 Rev 2C ,chapter 16.1 Rev 13 & Draft NUREG-1602 Dtd June 19971997-09-29029 September 1997 Comment on Draft Reg Guides DG-1061,1062,1064 & 1065,draft SRP Chapter 19 Rev L ,chapter 3.9.7 Rev 2C ,chapter 16.1 Rev 13 & Draft NUREG-1602 Dtd June 1997 NRC-97-0078, Comment on Draft Reg Guides DG-1061,1062,1064 & 1065,draft SRP Chapter 19 Rev L ,chapter 3.9.7 Rev 2C ,chapter 16.1 Rev 13 & Draft NUREG-1602 Dtd June 19971997-08-0606 August 1997 Comment on Draft Reg Guides DG-1061,1062,1064 & 1065,draft SRP Chapter 19 Rev L ,chapter 3.9.7 Rev 2C ,chapter 16.1 Rev 13 & Draft NUREG-1602 Dtd June 1997 ML20112G8451996-06-11011 June 1996 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Reporting Reliability & Availability Info for Risk-Significant Sys & Equipment NRC-96-0024, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Radioactive Matl.Util Supports Need for NRC to Be Promptly Informed of Incidents Involving Intentional Misuse of Licensed Matl1996-02-28028 February 1996 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Reporting Requirements for Unauthorized Use of Radioactive Matl.Util Supports Need for NRC to Be Promptly Informed of Incidents Involving Intentional Misuse of Licensed Matl NRC-96-0010, Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Use of Potassium Iodide1996-02-12012 February 1996 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-63 Re Use of Potassium Iodide NRC-95-0131, Comment on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-62 Re Changes to QA Program.Agrees That Changes Needed in Process for QA Program Revs1995-11-28028 November 1995 Comment on Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-62 Re Changes to QA Program.Agrees That Changes Needed in Process for QA Program Revs NRC-95-0107, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors1995-10-12012 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors NRC-95-0103, Comment on Draft Reg Guide & NRC Bulletin, Potential Plugging of ECCS Strainers for Debris in Bwr. Supports Points That Bulletin Should Include Option of Justifying Operability of Currently Installed Passive Strainers1995-10-0202 October 1995 Comment on Draft Reg Guide & NRC Bulletin, Potential Plugging of ECCS Strainers for Debris in Bwr. Supports Points That Bulletin Should Include Option of Justifying Operability of Currently Installed Passive Strainers TXX-9522, Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources1995-08-26026 August 1995 Comment Opposing Proposed GL on Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits.Believes That Complete Technical Review of All Surveillance Procedures Would Be Expensive & Unnecessary Expenditure of Licensee Resources NRC-95-0080, Comment on Proposed Generic Communication Re Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits1995-07-21021 July 1995 Comment on Proposed Generic Communication Re Testing of safety-related Logic Circuits NRC-95-0078, Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval1995-07-14014 July 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Generic Communication Re Process for Changes to Security Plans W/O Prior NRC Approval NRC-95-0079, Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial1995-07-13013 July 1995 Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR50 Re Changes in Frequency Requirements for Emergency Planning & Preparedness Exercises from Annual to Biennial NRC-95-0073, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR70 Re Change to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control1995-06-0909 June 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR70 Re Change to NPP Security Requirements Associated W/Containment Access Control NRC-95-0056, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing1995-05-0808 May 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing NRC-95-0042, Comment Supporting Draft Policy Statement Re Freedom of Employees in Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns W/O Fear of Retaliation1995-04-10010 April 1995 Comment Supporting Draft Policy Statement Re Freedom of Employees in Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns W/O Fear of Retaliation NRC-95-0047, Comment on GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety Related Power-Operated Gate Valves. Draft GL Should Be Revised to Permit Some Use of Plant Operating Experience as Basis for Engineering Judgement1995-03-27027 March 1995 Comment on GL, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety Related Power-Operated Gate Valves. Draft GL Should Be Revised to Permit Some Use of Plant Operating Experience as Basis for Engineering Judgement NRC-95-0007, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Proposed Policy Statement on Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities1995-02-0707 February 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Proposed Policy Statement on Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities NRC-94-0145, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Np Reactors.All Util Outages Currently Controlled by Defense in Depth Philosophy Implemented by Operations & Work Control Group1995-01-11011 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Shutdown & Low Power Operations for Np Reactors.All Util Outages Currently Controlled by Defense in Depth Philosophy Implemented by Operations & Work Control Group NRC-95-0001, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR21 Re Procurement of Commercial Grade Items by NPP Licensees1995-01-0909 January 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR21 Re Procurement of Commercial Grade Items by NPP Licensees NRC-94-0130, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal1994-12-0909 December 1994 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2,51 & 54 Re NPP License Renewal NRC-94-0128, Comment Supporting & Opposing Sections of Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of NPP Security Requirements for an Internal Threat,1994-12-0707 December 1994 Comment Supporting & Opposing Sections of Proposed GL Re Reconsideration of NPP Security Requirements for an Internal Threat, NRC-94-0106, Comment Supporting NUMARC Responses Re Reexamination of NRC Enforcement Policy1994-11-30030 November 1994 Comment Supporting NUMARC Responses Re Reexamination of NRC Enforcement Policy NRC-94-0100, Comment on Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants.Endorses NEI Response to Ref 2 Submitted to NRC on 9410031994-10-13013 October 1994 Comment on Pilot Program for NRC Recognition of Good Performance by Nuclear Power Plants.Endorses NEI Response to Ref 2 Submitted to NRC on 941003 NRC-94-0074, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Consideration of Changes to fitness-for-duty Requirements.Recommends That Random Testing Scope Remain Same1994-08-0909 August 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Consideration of Changes to fitness-for-duty Requirements.Recommends That Random Testing Scope Remain Same NRC-94-0070, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Changes to Security Program & Safeguards Contingency Plan Independent Reviews & Audit Frequency.Util Believes Further Rule Changes Should Be Made1994-07-19019 July 1994 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-59 Re Changes to Security Program & Safeguards Contingency Plan Independent Reviews & Audit Frequency.Util Believes Further Rule Changes Should Be Made ML20070P1161994-04-18018 April 1994 Comments on DE LLRW Onsite & Radwaste Disposal NRC-93-0149, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Protection Against Malevolent Use of Vehicles at NPP1993-12-17017 December 1993 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Protection Against Malevolent Use of Vehicles at NPP NRC-93-0145, Comment on NUMARC Petition for Rulemaking PRM 21-2, Commercial Grade Item Dedication Facilitation. Concurs W/ Petition1993-12-15015 December 1993 Comment on NUMARC Petition for Rulemaking PRM 21-2, Commercial Grade Item Dedication Facilitation. Concurs W/ Petition NRC-93-0144, Comment on Draft NUREG/BR-0058,Rev 2, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of Us Nrc. Concurs W/Comments Submitted by NUMARC1993-12-0606 December 1993 Comment on Draft NUREG/BR-0058,Rev 2, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of Us Nrc. Concurs W/Comments Submitted by NUMARC ML20059L3211993-11-24024 November 1993 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.120 Re Establishment, Implementation & Maintenance of Training Program NRC-93-0068, Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercises from Annual to Biennial1993-05-0505 May 1993 Comment Supporting Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-58 Re VEPCO Petition to Change Frequency of Emergency Planning Exercises from Annual to Biennial DD-92-08, Director'S Decision DD-92-08 Re Enforcement Actions to Be Taken Against Util Due to Allegations Presented by Gap. Petition Denied1992-11-25025 November 1992 Director'S Decision DD-92-08 Re Enforcement Actions to Be Taken Against Util Due to Allegations Presented by Gap. Petition Denied 1999-09-13
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20197J8971998-12-14014 December 1998 NRC Staff Request for Extension of Time to File Response to Sp O'Hern Written Presentation.* Staff Requests That Motion for Extension of Time Until 990115 to File Written Presentation Be Granted.With Certificate of Svc ML20154K8601998-10-14014 October 1998 NRC Staff Response to Request for Hearing Filed by Applicant Sp O'Hern.* Request Re Denial of Application for Senior Operator License Filed in Timely Manner.Staff Does Not Object to Granting Request.With Certificate of Svc ML20235Y8981987-07-21021 July 1987 Licensee Response to Petition of Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan & Sisters,Servants of Immaculate Heart of Mary Congregation.* Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20101T3391985-01-28028 January 1985 Petition to Institute Proceeding on &/Or Investigative Actions Into Safety Matters at Facility,Per 10CFR2.206 & 2.202.Low Power/Fuel Loading License Should Not Be Issued Until Listed Safety Allegations Resolved ML20076K2271983-07-0707 July 1983 Answer Opposing Citizens for Employment & Energy 830622 Petition for Review of Aslab 830602 Decision ALAB-730, Affirming ASLB 821029 Initial Decision LBP-82-96 Re OL Issuance.Petition Should Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20072E9561983-06-22022 June 1983 Petition for Review of ASLAP 830602 Decision Affirming ASLB 821029 Decision Authorizing Issuance of full-power Ol.Monroe County Does Not Have Radiological Emergency Response Plan & Will Not Implement Draft.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20064N8131983-02-0909 February 1983 Brief Appealing ASLB 821029 Initial Decision.Monroe County Has Not Adopted Emergency Evacuation Plan.Board Findings on Contention 8 Erroneous & Should Be Reversed.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070H3861982-12-22022 December 1982 Response in Opposition to Citizens for Employment & Energy Response to ASLB 821122 Order to Show Cause Why Appeal from 821029 Initial Decision Should Not Be Summarily Dismissed for Failure to File Proposed Findings.W/Certificate of Svc ML20066K6521982-11-23023 November 1982 Brief Opposing Monroe County,Mi 821108 Appeal of ASLB 821029 Initial Decision Denying County 820827 late-filed Petition to Intervene.Intervention Petition Correctly Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066K9131982-11-21021 November 1982 Answer to Aslab 821112 Order to Show Cause.Filing of Proposed Findings & Remedy of Default Is Optional.Remedy Should Not Be Invoked.Complaint of Aslab Is Only Procedural ML20066K9471982-11-21021 November 1982 Answer Supporting Monroe County,Mi 821108 Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellate Pleadings.Aslab Should Advise County & Citizens for Employment & Energy of Rules Re Appeal of Intervention Petition.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066E3051982-11-0808 November 1982 Exceptions to ASLB 821029 Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065B2541982-09-10010 September 1982 Requests Extension Until 820920 to Respond to County of Monroe,Mi 820827 Petition to Intervene.Time for Answer Should Be Calculated from Date Petition Mailed to Counsel of Record.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062M0251981-12-11011 December 1981 Response Supporting NRC 811116 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 5.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20004F4041981-06-0202 June 1981 Requests Extension Until 840630 for Facility Completion,Due to Delays & Difficulties in Regulatory Process,Including Regulatory Review Hiatus & Impact of Responding to post-TMI Requirements ML19209A9121979-08-20020 August 1979 Answer in Opposition to Citizens for Energy & Employment 790807 Motion for Change in Discovery Schedule.Delay Will Cause Financial & Planning Difficulties for Applicants. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19208A0311979-07-19019 July 1979 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue,In Support of Util 790719 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 11.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19208A0281979-07-19019 July 1979 Consolidated Motion to Compel Citizens for Employment & Energy to Answer 790327 Interrogatories 2-6 & for Summary Disposition of Contention 11.Contention Does Not State Genuine Issue ML19225A5151979-06-25025 June 1979 Detroit Edison Objections to Citizens for Employment & Energy Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents Served on 790525.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027A5541978-12-15015 December 1978 Applicants' Answer to First Amended Intervention Petition of Citizens for Employment & Energy. Requests Cee Intervention Petition Be Denied ML20027A5191978-12-0404 December 1978 Amended Petition to Intervene in Matter of Proc Re Subj Facil.Incl Identification of Petitioner & Its Interests to Be Affected,Interests Adversely Affected by Action of Comm & Statement of Contentions ML20027A4671978-11-22022 November 1978 Applicant De'S Consolidated Answer to Intervention Petitions of M & D Drake & Cee.Asserts Petitions Should Be Denied Since Neither Satisfy 10CFR2.714 Re Interests of the Petitioners.Cert of Svc Encl ML20027A2821978-10-27027 October 1978 Citizens for Employment & Energy Response to Applicants Motion for Leave to Commence Limited Discovery Against Petitions Drake & Cee & Alternative Request for Waiver. Urges Motion Be Denied.Cert of Svc Encl ML20027A2091978-10-20020 October 1978 Motion for Leave to Commence Limited Discovery Against Drake & Cee & Alternative Request for Waiver.Discovery Necessary to Determine Whether Drake & Cee Have Necessary Interests Required for Intervention ML20027A2181978-10-20020 October 1978 Applicant Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Drake & Cee Petitions Until 2 Wks After Date Applicant Received Last Transcript of Depositions ML20076A6351978-10-10010 October 1978 Petition to Intervene on Basis That Entire State of Mi Will Be Affected by Safety & Economic Health of Plant & Many Unresolved Safety Issues Exist ML20076A6161978-10-0909 October 1978 Petition to Intervene Re Proposed Facility.Intervention Sought on Basis of Health & Safety of Residents of Area Near Proposed Facility,Environ Concerns & Util Financial Qualifications ML20027A1921978-09-15015 September 1978 Alleges That Recent Notice of Hearing & Newspaper Ads Re Intervention in Hearings by Citizens as Individuals Defective,Based on Fact That Right of Local Govts to Participate Not Brought to Attention of Local Units ML20027A2151978-02-0101 February 1978 Amended Petition to Stop Northern Michigan Electric,Inc Sale of Part Interest in Facility 1998-12-14
[Table view] |
Text
..
~ - a e' '
NRC Pl]UI.'C DUUUMENT 1100M
,9 4A'e. F s
r
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (, p 1- j s < . -
~.'.
p ,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDg"'/' ',? N, D In the Matter of )
)
THE DETROIT EDISON COMP ANY ) Docket No. 50-341 (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power ) (Operatine License)
Plant, Unit 2) )
APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS TO CEE' S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Introduction On May 25, 1979, the intervenors in this proceeding, Citizens for Employment and Energy ("CEE"), served upon Applicants' counsel a document entitled "CEE Interrogatories to Applicant".1/ The discovery requests made in the document are suoject to a number of objections which Applicants set out below pursuant to S2.740b(6) and S2.741(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Each of the thirteen " interrogatories" contained in the document, in addition to seeking answers to certain questions, requests the Applicants to provide CEE with copies of certain " writings". Applicants, therefore, construe this document to be both a set of interrogatories made pursuant to S2.740b of the Rules of Practice and a request for production of documents made pursuant to S2.741 1/ The Detroit Edison Company, Northern Michigan Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Wolverine Electric Cooperative, Inc.
are joint applicants for an operating license for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2(" Fermi 2") and 4 0;i6 c ectively referred t s "^PP ic "t8"-
7 907100 ff6I
of the Rules. Accordingly, in setting out their objections to the document, Applicants treat some " interrogatories" as interrogatories and others as requests for the production of documents. The subparts of some " interrogatories",
moreover, require separate treatment. Such objections are grouped, however, under CEE's original numbering for the convenience of tne Board and the other parties.
By way of general objection, Applicants note that each of CEE's requests for production directs the Applicants to provide CEE wich copies of the documents sought.
Section 2.741 does not require Applicants to provide copies of requested documents to CEE. Rather, Applicants are only required to permit a person acting on CEE's behalf "to inspect and copy any designated documents." Even this obligation only exists, of course, to the extent that the requested documents are within the scope of S2.740 and in Applicant's possession, custody, or control. 52.741(a)(1).
Applicants make a number of specific objections below to the scope and nature of the requests for production made by CEE. To the extent that Applicants do not take issue with specific requests, however, Applicants are prepared to make the identified Socuments available for inspection and copying. CEE has not specified a time, place, and manner for this inspection as required by
-2_ 414 047
S2.741(c). A mutually convenient time subsequent to the original June 29, 1979 date for response, however, can doubtless be found. Applicants are willing, moreover, to assist CEE, at tha latter's expense, in the reproduction of whatever specific documents CEE determines it needs after it has inspected the documents Applicants make available.
A number of specific objections to the CEE interrogatories are also raised below. Like the requests for production, a number of the interrogatories are broader in scope than any of the contentions admitted into issue in this proceeding. At least two of the interrogatories seek information of a sensitive nature. Applicants intend to submit written answers to CEE to each interrogatory or portion of an interrogatory not specifically objected to by June 29, 1979 as required by the Board's Order of March 21, 1979.
Specific objections to the interrogatories and requests for production follow.
Interrogatory 1 The terms in which this set of requests is cast suggests that CEE does not properly understand certain aspects of the matters involved. The interrogatory asks for various information related to " intrusions on the plant site" f rom the beginning of cons t ru ct ion . The term " plant 4I4 048 site" is somewhat broader than the construction site, the latter being the only area for which security is maintained during construction. Available records concerning the areas for which security has been maintained will be made available to CEE.
The set of discovery requests made in this paragraph raises an objection that also applies to one or more of the other interrogatories made by CEE. CEE has requested, in effect, that Applicants make an exhaustive investigation of large numbers of records and compile for CEE various lists of intrusions, individuals involved, and suspected consequences. Applicants submit that such investigation and compilation is not the responsibility of a responding party. See, e.g., Luey v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 340 F. Supp. 632 (S.D. Mich. 1965) (party not required to abstract or summarize materials); Triangle Mfg. Co. v.
Paramount Bag. Mfg. Co., 35 F.R.D. 540 (E.D.N.Y. 1964).2/
This is particularly true in the present case since the information sought by CEE relates solely to concerns that it, rather than Applicants, have raised. See 4A Moore's Federal Practice $33.20 at n.9 and n.15. The compilations 2/ Discovery between parties to an NRC proceeding, except the Staff, follows the form of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Allied General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489 (1977). Guidance therefore is available from legal authorities construing those rules. Boston Edison Electric Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579 (1975). fj4 g 7
that CEE seeks, moreover, are not ones that Applicants could be expected to otherwise make in preparation for this proceeding. Contrast Radzik v. Chicagoland Recreational Vehicle Dealers Ass ' n, 15 F.R. Serv. 2d 1606 (N.D. Ill.
1972).
Perhaps the most compelling basis for this objection is the fact that CEE does not intend that the compilations it seeks from Applicants will reduce, in any way, the scope of its requests for documents. In the same interrogatory that CEE requested the compilations, it has also requested all of the documents from which such lists would be developed. If Applicants are to comply with this production request, the relevant documents will be equally available to CEE for investigation. CEE will be at least as well situated as Applicants to derive the lists with which only it is con ce rne d . Accordingly, Applicants object to the request that they make any lists, compilations, or summaries of materials for CEE. This objection applies equally, as will be seen below, to all the compilations and summaries requested in the other interrogatories.
Therefore, no lists will be provided in Applicants' response.
The last request made in Interrogatory 1 is that Applicants produce "any security plans" the Applicants use now or have used previously. As Applicants' responses will show, no " security plan" as such exists f or the construction
-s- 4i4 050
stage. The project instruction manuals tnat relate in part to security during this period will be made available.
If CEE is in fact seeking the security plan for the operation of Fermi 2, then Applicants object to this request. Such a security plan is sensitive information and subject to only very limited discovery. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2), AL AB-410, 5 NRC 1398 (1977). In Diablo Canyon the Appeal Board held that:
- 1) a security plan is deemed to be information subject to the protective provisions of 10 C.F.R. S2.790(d); 2) in most cases, release of the plan must be subject to a protective order; 3) the burden is on the party seeking discovery to show the relationship between the contentions and the specific portions of the plan to be examined; and 4) no representative of a party may review the plan (or any portion thereof) w ithou t first demonstrating technical expertise.
Clearly, CEE has not made the requisite showing necessary for discovery of Applicants' operating security plan. Applicants therefore object if such a request is with-in the meaning of the final sentence ot Interrogatory 1.3/
3/ CEE also requested the names of any employees of the Detroit Edison Company or its contractors who made unauthor-ized " intrusions" at the site. Applicants have no records of any employee " intrusions". If there were records of any such intrusions, Applicants would be compelled to object to this request for personally-identifiable employee information on much the same grounds put forth in conn tion with Interrogatory 4, infra at 9. 4 g
Interrogatory 2 The principal cbjection to this set of interroga-tories is, simply, that it exceeds the scope of Jontention 4(b) to which it obviously is addressed. This request seeks an unreasonably burdensome production of reinspection records. At least several thousands of documents are involved. The scope of the request made by CEE is not even arguably related to the specific concerns, large and small bore pipe hangers and welds of safety-related components, which CEE was required to identify in its contention.
Requests phrased in terms of "all documents . . . are not favored, Illinois Power Co. (Clinton Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), ALAB-340c 4 NRC 27 (1976), for the obvious reason that they invariably exceed the scope of the issues in the proceeding. Applicants object to these requests because they do, in fact, exceed the scope of the contention.
Applicants will provide CEE with the current Quality Assurance Inspection Program Plan and any previous plans to the extent that they are available.
Interrogatory 3 This interrogatory asks an unreasonable and impossible task of Applicants. It is not possible to list, much less provide, all quality assurance documents that have ever been kept in connection with the Fermi 2
-,_ 4i4 052
project. Documents that have been superseded are, as a matter of prudent engineering and business practice, routinely destroyed in order to prevent confusion or because they are required by NRC procedures to be destroyed.
Applicants submit that the only issue raised by Contention 4(c) is whether Applicants have maintained the records that are required, by NRC regulation, to be kept during the licensing of the Fermi 2 facility. The requests as made are clearly beyond the scope of this contention. Applicants object to the requests to the extent that they exceed the scope of Contention 4(c).
Answers to specific questions contained within this interro-gatory will be made with other responses.
Interrogatory 4 This interrogatory consists of a large number of questions and document requests loosely related to construc-tion contracts and employment the Fermi 2 site. Conten-tion 4(d) to which this interrogatory obviously relates is limited to the issues of the replacement of the Ralph M.
Parsons Company or of replacement of one or more of its supervisory teams. Any attempt to conduct discovery relating to "any other contractor" is obviously imp rope r.
This interrogatory is overbroad in another respect. Contention 4(d) is not only limited to the Ralph k
Q$}
M. Parsons Company but only relates to that contractor insofar as " quality control" issues are raised. This interrogatory seeks information relating to any termination of employment of any contractor or employee for virtually any reason. Applicants object to such a request and intend initially to provide CEE only information and documents related to the Parsons Company " quality control" issues specifically raised in Contention 4(d).
The third principal objection to this set of interrogatories is based upon the interests of the employees of Detroit Edison and itc contractors in the confidentiality of their individual employment records, which interest Applicants are uniquely situated to assert.
CEE has requested the names and employment records of each employee who has, "f or whatever reason", been dismissed from the Fermi 2 project. Applicants submit that these requests not only exceed the scope of Contention 4(d) but also seek confide 1tial information for which no need has been demonstrated.
The need for an employer to assert the judicially cognizable privacy interests of employees in records in the employer's possession has recently been recognized by the United States Supreme Court in The Detroit Edison Company 414 g54
- v. National labor Relations Board, U.S. , 99 S.
Ct. 1123, 1133 (1979). See also, Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy in an Information Society (1977) (reconcending that all employers should be under a duty to saf eguard the confidentiality of employee records ).
Matters relating to the termination of employment of an individual are, Applicants submit, particularly sensitive. Such records should not be made available by Applicants without (1) a specif te showing of relevance to the admitted contentions and (2; a protective order from the Board insur.ng the maximum orotection for the individuals that ic consistent with
- ie interests of this proceeding.
Applican:s specifically request that the Licensing Board rule that any records Applicants make available to CEE in connecticn with this interrogatory will, at least initially, be masked in a manner necessary to protect the identity of individual employees.
Interrogatory 5 The scope of this interrogatory should be limited to the specific deficiencies CEE alleged .n Contention 4(e)(1) and (2). Applicants are prepared to make available the requested documents that relmte to these two itemc.
Interrogatorv 6 Once again, Applicants must object that CEE, eitherthroughdesignorfailuretodraqt[qare their requests, has attempted to exceed the scope of the issues admitted in this proceeding. This interrogatory seeks all documents relating to the radiation monitoring system "for the plant". Contention 5 presents an issue only with respect to perimeter or of f-site monitoring of radf.oactive releases. In-plant monitoring has never been raised as an issue by CEE. Applicants object, therefore, to requests for documents not relating to Contention 5.
Interrogatories 7, 8, and 9 These interrogatories are not objectionable except insof ar as they ceek actual copies of documents rather than an opportunity to inspect and copy. In responding to these interrogatories, Applicants will resolve any questions as to the scope of the requests by ref erence to Contention 6, to which the interrogatories obviously relate.
Interrogatory 10 Contention 8 raises only the issue of a f easible evacuation route for the residents of the Stony Pointe area. Attempts to expand the scope of this issue to evacuation of " Southeast M ich is and Ohio" are patently improper. Accordingly, Applicants object to the interroga-tories and production requests in this paragraph insofar as they do not relate to the evacuat ion of the Stony Pointe area.
AIA 056 Interrogatory 11 This interrogatory is not objectionable except insofar as it seeks actual copies of documents rather than an opportunity to inspect and copy.
Interrogatory 12 CEE has requested a copy of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the project. That document is not longer relevant because the Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") has been issued. Applicants have provided CEE with a copy of the FSAR and will continue to provide CEE with all FSAR amendments as they are made.
Interrogatory 13 Applicants have no objection to this interrogatory except that it also requests copies of documents rather than opportunity to inspect and copy.
Respectfully submitted, LeBOEUF, L AMB , LEIBY & MacRAE Of Counsel: By W AL4 Patrick K . O' Hare L. Charles Landgraf 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Peter A. Marquardt (202) 457-7500 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan Attorneys for Applicants June 25, 1979 414 057 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-341
( Lnrico Fermi Atomic Power ) (Operating License)
Plant, Unit 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 25th day of June, 1979 served the foregoing docu.' nt entitled
" Applicants' Objections to CEE's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents" by mailing copies thereof, first class mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed, or by personal delivery, as so indicated, to the following persons:
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Dr. David R. Schink Chairman, Atomic Safety and Department of Oceanography Licensing Board Texas A&M University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory College Station, Texas 77840 Commission (mail)
Washington, D.C. 20555 (personal delivery) Richard Black, Esq.
Office of the Executive Mr. Frederick J. Shon Legal Director Atomic Saf ety and Licensing U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission (mail)
Washington, D.C. 20555 (personal delivery) Mr. Delbert J. Hoffman Supervisor, Frenchtown Chairman, Atomic Saf ety and Township Licensing Appeal Board Panel Frenchtown Township Hall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2665 Vivian Road Commission Monroe, Michigan 48161 Washington, D.C. 20555 (mail)
(mail) 4T4 058
Kim Arthur Siegf ried Secretary 10084 Lincoln U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Huntington Woods, Michigan 48070 Commission (mail) Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Monroe County Library System Section Reference Department (original plus 20) 3700 South Custer Road (personal delivery)
Monroe, Michigan 48161 (mail)
Y Y L. Charles Landgraf
//
LeBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MacRAE Attorneys for Applicants 414 059