ML20148A655
| ML20148A655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1978 |
| From: | Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810300223 | |
| Download: ML20148A655 (6) | |
Text
i
~
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM 10/05/78 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j 4
%,, /, / Y In the Matter of -
4 O h//#/
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
) Docket Nos. 50-70 (Vallecitos Nuclear Center - (ShowCause) % > i .e '
General . Electric Test Reactor, .
Operating License No. TR-1)
NRC STAFF'S eNSWER TO INTERVENORS' MOTION
'FOR REFERENCE'0F QUESTIONS By motion dated September 13, 19781/, Intervenors Friends of the Earth (F0E) and Congressman DellumsU (Intervenors), jointly requested " refer-ence of General Electric's interrogatory No.1, June 26,1978, all responses of all parties thereto, and the disposition thereof by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" pursuantto10CFR82.730(f).
For the following reasons, the NRC Staff opposes the Intervenors' motion and urges that it be denied.
I. BACKGROUND On June 26, 1978, the Licensee, General Electric Company (GE), served interrogatories upon each of the consolidated Intervenors. In interrog-atory No. 1 to Intervenors, the Licensee requested, inter alia, that l
1/ eW observe that although so dated, the attache'd certificate of service is dated September 14, 1978 and the document was postmarked September 15, 1978. -
~
U eW presume that, in addition to Friends of the Earth and Congress-man Dellums, this motion is also filed on behalf of Ms. Barbara Shockley and Congressmen John and Phillip Burton, the other parties to this proceeding, who have been consolidated with F0E and Con-gressman Dellums, repsectively. +
l 781030@>3 ,
We ee- -.I.-
. .- - . - -. . . _ . . -~ . - - _ - . - - _. --
Intervenors provide the Licensee with certain specified'information re- ,
garding each person that the Intervenors have engaged or utilized to conduct any review, analysis, test, or studies related to the three issues to be considered in this proceeding. The Licensee asked the Intervenors to provide the subject matter of such reviews or analyses, and a description and identification of the reviews or analyses, or any written reports prepared as a result of such reviews or analyses. The Licensee also requested, in other interrogatories, information regarding potential witnesses and positions that the Intervenors would likely take at the hearing for this proceeding.
Intervenors' initial response i the interrogatories was to indicate ,
that such information would be given as soon as it is available (see responses of Intervenors F0E and Congressman Dellums to the interrog-atories, both dated July 10, 1978).
On July 18, 1978, GE moved for an order compelling responses to its ;
interrogatories, among them interrogatory No. 1. The Staff supported the motion 1/ and the Intervenors opposed it. On August 7, 1978, Inter-venor F0E filed objections to GE's interrogatory No. 1. By Memorandum i and Order dated August 14, 1978, this Licensing Board granted GE's motion and directed responses to, inter alia, interrogatory No. 1. On September 18 and 19,1978, Congressman Dellums and F0E, respectively, SI See NRC Staff's Response to Licensee's Motion.to Compel Discovery, dated August 7, 1978. .
l
filed answers to GE's June 26 interrogatories, noting their objection to interrogatoryNo.1.0 II. ARGUMENT In accordance with 10 CFR s2.730(f),
when in the judgment of the presiding officer prompt decision is necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest or unusual delay to ruling promptly or the expense, the presidig Commission. .. officer may refer the The Intervenors' motion is totally devoid of explanation why referral of the Licensing Board's ruling compe11ing responses to GE's interrogatory No.1 "is necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest or unusual delay or expense." Such an unsupported and vague request is contrary to the clear requirements of 10 CFR B2.730(b) which provides that a motion must state with particularity the grounds upon which it is based. For this reason alone, the motion should be denied. ,
Moreover, the Licensing Board's ruling on this matter did not involve consideration of any important or overriding issue of law or policy which might require scrutiny by the Appeal Board in furtherance of the public interest. Rather, its determination simply applied accepted principles concerning discovery on a very fundamental matter - dis-closure of the names of individuals participating on behalf of the Intervenors. .
O uch objections reflect, in the Staff's view, a direct violation of
~
S the duty placed on Intervenors to respond to GE's interrogatories pursuant to the Licensing Board's August 14 Memorandum and Order.
N ursuant P to 10 CFR 52.785(b)(1), referral is to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
l
______mm_.
l
~
4- l l
In addition, the mere possibility of finding error in this ruling upon appeal of the Licensing Board's initial decision thereby necessitating a j further proceeding is in no way an " unusual" occurrence as contemplated by 10 CFR 62.730(f). Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-116, 6 AEC 258 (1973). Under the rule of the Zion case Intervenors' instant motion would be considered an impermissible inter-locutory appeal warranting denial.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Staff opposes Intervenors' motion and urges that it be denied.
/
gectfullysubmitted,
'h k 4 Lawrenc]e(,J.Chandlerb 0%
d NLl Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 5th day of October,1978 l -
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ,
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 50-70
) (Show Cause)
(Vallecitos Nuclear Center - )
--~
General Electric Test Reactor, )
Operating License No. TR-1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR REFERENCE OF QUESTIONS" in the above- captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, '
first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 5th day of October,1978:
Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman
- Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Friends of the Earth U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 124 Spear Street Washington, D. C. 20555 San Francisco, California 94105 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger* George Edgar, Esq.
/ omic Safety and Licensing Board Morgan, Lewis & Bockius U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20036 Dr. Harry Foreman Jed Somit, Esq.
Box 395, Mayo 100 Bush Street - Suite 304 University of Minnesota San Francisco, California 94104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Mr. Ken Wade The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums 1735 New York Avenue, N. W.
ATTH: Nancy Snow Room 503 General Delivery, Civic Center Washington, D. C. 20006
. Station Oakland, California ~ 94604 Mr. Edward A. Firestone General Electric Company Ms. Barbara Shockley Nuclear Energy Group 1890 Bockman Road 175 Curtner Avenue San Lorenzo, California- 94580 San Jose, California 95125 -
(Mail Code 822) r__ a
i,
,, - ij The Honorable Phillip Burton Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Attention: Mary Panel (5) 2454 Rayburn House Office Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20555 The Honorable John L. Burton Docketing and Service Section (3)*
1714 Longworth House Office Office of the Secretary Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 (0 W
_awrence J. Chandler Counsel for NRC Staff b
O l
l:
u