ML18025A683

Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 - Responses of Ecnp Intervenors to Board Memorandum and Order Compelling Intervenors to Answer Applicant and Staff Interrogatories

ML18025A683
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	09/17/1979
From:	Johnsrud J H, Kepford C Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML18025A683 (22)

Text

As-ENVIRONMENTALCOALITIONONNUCLEARPOWERy/i7CoOirectore:Mr.GeorgeBoomtma-R.D.>1,PeachBottom,Pa.17563717-548.2836Dr.JudithJohntrud-433OrlandoAvenue,StateCollege,Pa.16801814.23M900UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICANUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIONBEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGDocketIntheMatterof))PENNSYLVANIAPOWERANDLIGHTCO.)ALLEGHENYELECTRICCOOPERATIVE,INC.)(SusquehannaSteamElectricStation,Units1and2)QBOARDtreannNos50-38-88i~a.ResponsesofECNPIntervenorstoBoardMemorandumandOrderCompellinIntervenorstoAnswerAlicantandStaffInterroatoriesTheEnvironmentalCoalitiononNuclearPower(ECNP)submitshereinitsstrongprotesttotheBoard'sorderfordetailedandrepetitiveresponsestounreasonable,burdensome,andundulyoppressivenumbersofInterrogatoriesfromthetwopartieswhichareproponentsoftheissuanceofanoperatinglicense.ECNPagainmovestheBoardtoissueaprotectiveorder,notjustrelativetoanysingleinterrogatory,butanorderprotectingalloftheseinexperienced,unfinanced,anduncounseledcitizenintervenorsinthiscasefromtheunjustworkloads,inappropriatelyshortdeadlines,unnecessarypaperwork,andinjusticeimposedthusfarandwhichotherwisemightbeimposedinthisproceedingbyStaff,Applicant,andtheBoarditself.TheECNPrepresentativesmakenotetothisBoardofthefoIlowingback-groundinformation,withtheintentofassistingtheBoardtounderstandthecapacitiesofandlimitationsuponthesepublic-interestintervenorsastheydifferfromthoseofStaffandApplicant. l.ECHPisnotrepresentedbylegalcounsel;theorganizationrcannotaffordtohireexpertattorneystoconducttheircaseinthepublicinterest.Asordinarycitizensconcernedenoughwithpublichealthandsafetytodonateourtimeandeffortsti)thismatter,andwhoseinterestshavebeendeterminedbythisBoardtobeaffectedbytheoutcomeofthisproceeding,weareattempting,totPebestofourabilities,tofulfillourresponsibilitiesandweexpecttoreceivefairhandedtreatmeritanddueprocess.2.ECHPhasrequested,andhasbeendenied,fundsfromtheHRCtoassistinpreparingandconductingtheircaseonbehalfofthemembersofthepublicwhobelongtoECNP.Mehavenofundingavailableforresearchers,typists,reproductionofthevoluminousfilingswhicharerequiredbytheRegulationsandtheBoardtobeservedonallparties.Nofundsareavailable,fortravelexpensestoobtaindocumentsorfortheirreproductionattheexorbitantrateschargedintheNRC'sPublicDocumentsRoom,orforthepurchaseofdocumentsproducedattaxpayerexpensefrcmHTIS,orforthemanyptherpurposesavailabletoGovernmentattorne,(sandtheApplicant'scounsel.3.Drs.KepfordandJohnsrud,designatedbyECNPtorepresentitsmembers'nterestsbeforetheNRC,areunabletoaffordfrequenttripstotheMashington,D.C.PublicDocumentsRoomoftheNRC(350milesround-trip)ortotheMilkes-BarrePublicLibraryLocalDocumentsRoom(250mi,lesround-trip).Andintheenergy-constrainedsocietythatnowcharacterizestheU.S.,theseIntervenors'financial statusandplaceofresidenceeffectivelyprecludeuseofpublictransportation(byairduetoexpenseandbybusduetotimeandexpenseofprolongedlodgingandmealsinWashingtonorWilkes-Barre).Throughmuchofthesuamerof1979,severerestrictionsontheavailabilityofgasolinefurtherpreventedthefrequenttravelwhichtheStaffattorneyinhisJune27thletter(whichisnotidentifiedastheStaff'sresponsetoECNP'sFirstRoundDiscoveryRequests)socavalierlyassumesIntervenorsarefreetoundertakeinordertomakeuseofthedocumentsrequestedondiscovery.TheBoarditselfsimilarlycommandstheseIntervenorstoexpendlargeamountsofgasolineandmoneytheydonothavetotraveltothelocalesatwhichthetranscriptoftheproceedingsisavailable.TheReferenceLibrarianoftheLocalDocumentsRoominWilkes-BarrehasrefusedtoallowECNPIntervenorstoremovethetranscriptofthePre-HearingConferencein'rdertopreparetheirresponses.TheNRCStaffstatedinanApril10,1979,lettertotheBoard,Additionally,withregardtotheunderstandingreachedattheprehearingconferenceinvolvingtheavailabilitytotheintervenorsoftheStaff'ssecondcopyofthetranscript,onelimitingfactconcerningthisarrangementshouldbeclarified.AsweadvisedtheBoardattheconference,itnasbeenthepracticeoftheStafftomakeavailabletointervenorstheStaff'ssecondcopyofthehearingtranscriptwheneversuchispossible,andinthepresenthearingtheStaffwill,asithasindicated,followthatpractice.However,the'wheneverpossible'imitationofthisoffershouldbe,webeli'eve,clearlyunderstoodbyallpartiespriprtothecommencementofthehearinginthismatter....Tgus,.whenwespeakofasecondcopyofthetranscript,~<weenotreferringtoanextracopyofthetranscriptfori~hichtheStaffhasnoneedoranticipateduse,butratheracopythatwillberequiredforusebytheStaffatvarioustimesthroughouttheproceeding.Thepresentcaseis,ofcourse,noexception;becauseofthenatureofthisi)roceedingtherewillbefrequentoccasions whenStaffattorneysandwitnesseswillneedtoutilizebothcopiesofthedailytranscript,thuseliminatingthepossibilityofloaniagthesecondcopyofthetranscripttotheintervenors.TheStaff'sarbitrarilyimposedlimitationontheavailabilityofthetranscriptisnotinaccordwithwhatIntervenorsrecalltohavebeenthethrustoftheBoard'spositionduringthePrehearingConference.However,ECNPisforcedintothepositionofsayingthatwecannotcitetherecord,havingbeendeniedtheaccesstothetranscriptwhichECNPclearlyrequestedandwhichtheBoardhadpromisedtomakeavailabletotheintervenors(SeeBoard'sSpecialPrehearingConferenceOrder,March6,1979,pp.82-83).Sincewearedeniedthepromisedaccesstotherecord,ECNPisdenieddueprocessandcannotinanyfairnessbeexpectedtomeetthearbitraryrigiddeadlinesimposedforresponsestothisvastnumberofinterrogatories.4.Or.Kepford,tofulfillpersonalresponsibilities,lefttheUnitedStatesinlateDune;hereturnedtoPennsylvaniaonSeptember3.Or.Johnsrud,becauseofpriorcommitments,wasabsentfromthestatecommencingJuly3formostoftheremainderofthemonthand,againduringmuchofAugust.Therewas,therefore,noopportunityfortheseintervenorstorespondwithintheallottedtimeperiodtoApplicantandStafffilings,includingtheStaff'suntitledletterbearingthedateofJune27,1979,thatpertainedtoECNP'sFirstRoundOiscoveryrequests..ThelackofresponsesfromECNP,therefore,oughtnotbetakenasanindicationoflackofECNPinterestordesiretoparticipatefullyinthisproceeding.Itis,instead,amani-festationofourlimitationofresources,betheypersonal,temporal,orfinancial.WeasktheBoardtonote,inthisconnection,thattheJohnsrudsignatureontheECNPJune29,1979,responsestoStaffandApplicanr,InterrogatorieswastheonlyoneavailableintheabsenceofOr.Kepi'ord andthatthoseresponsesweresubmittedwithhisfullapproval;itisamatterthatappearstohavetroubledtheStaffattorneythroughouthisJuly13,1979,objections.6.TheECNPIntervenorsandtheirtwolegalrepresentativesareamongthePennsylvanianswhodirectlyexperienced,andsufferfrom,theseveretraumaIassociatedwiththeThreeMileIsland,Unit2,accidentwhichbeganonMarch28,1979,andisstill.inprogress.WhereasmembersoftheNRCStaff,the8oard,ortheApplicant'sstaffmaynothaveconsideredtheaccidentatTMIadanger,totheirlives,wewhowerepresentincentralPennsylvaniaduringthecrisisdid;theECNPrepresentativeswereinthevicinityoftheplantduringportionsofthefirstfivedaysofthecrisis;theyshelteredrefugeesfromtheHarrisburg-Middletownarea;asIntervenorsintheTMI-2OperatingLicenseProceedings,theywereespeciallykeenlycognizantofthehazardsassociatedwiththeeventanditsconsequencesforthepublic.Theeffectsofthepsychological'trauma,thus,werenotlimitedonlytoresidentsofHarrisburgandtheinmediateenvironsofthatreactor.Thedisruptiveimpactsofthataccident,inMarchandApril;andongoingeffectsofuncertaintyaboutthesafetyofourECNPmembersandofothersthroughoutcentralandeasternPennsylvaniahavehadsevererepercussionsforthepersonallivesoftheseECNPrepresentatives.Thepriorityofrespondingtothecallsforinformation,assistance,andreassurancefromthevictimsoftheTMI-2accidentmustbeunderstoodbythisHoardasamoralimperativethathasabsorbedasubstantiaTportionoftheseIntervenors'imeandenergiesintheensuingmonths.Thenatureofpublic-interestinvolvementinareactorlicensingproceedingdifferssubstantiallyfrcmthatoftheApplicant-theproponentoftheorder whichwillissuefromtheproceeding,thebeneficiaryofthatorder,andthebeareroftheburdenofproofintheproceeding--oroftheNRCand,sometimes,theState,bothofwhichhave,ingeneral,givensupportandissuedpermitsforthereactorinquestionbyth~!timethehearingprocessbegins.FortheIntervenor,>,publicawarenessofthependinghearingsislikelytoproducefinancialsupport,ifany,onlyasthetimeofhearingsapproaches.NotuntilthereisadequatefinancingcanIntervenorsprocuretheservicesofexpertwitnesses.Yetonlywhenthereissomedeterminationoftheapproximat>>timeofhearingscanthesewitpessesdecideiftheywillbefreetoparticipate,willhaveadequatetimeforpreparationoftestimony,andcanaffordthecom~itmentforwhat,fromacitizens'roup,canusuallyatbestbethereturnofgravelexpenses.ThisBoardhascommandedthecitizenintervenorsinthiscasetorespond,atthebeginningofdiscovery,totheStaff'srequestfortheidentities,addresses,professionalqualifications,subjectmatter,andtheverysubstanceofthetestimonyofsuch'witnessesastheIntervenorsmaywishtocall-ifindeedtheyareabletoobtainsufficientfundstobeabletoretainanywitnesses.Furthermore,thisBoardhascompelledtheseIntervenorstoidentifyandandproducefullytwomonthsinadvancealldocumentstobeusedintheirexaminationandcross-examinationofwitnesses.TheserequirementshavebeenimposedintheabsenceofreceiptojdiscoverydocumentsfromtheStaffandwithonlypartialcompliancewiththeirrequestsfromtheApplicant.ItispatentlyimpossibleforIntervenors"repre-sentativestoprovidesixtydaysinadvancethesubstanceoftestimonywhichtheBoardhasrequiredtobefiledonly21daysinadvanceofhearings.Iniervenorswillknowwhatdocumentshavebeenutilizedbytheirwitnesseswhenthose witnessesfiletheirtestimony.Intervenors,farmorethantheApplicantandStaff(theproponentsoftheissuanceofanoperatinglicense),cannotbeexpectedtoidentifyallthosedocumentsuponwhichtheywillrelyforexaminationandcross-examinationuntiltheyhavereceivedandstudiedthetestimoniesofwitnessesfortheotherparties.Furthermore,theissuesraisedincontentionaremattersaboutwhichtheApplicantandStaffshouldbewellpreparedalready,ifthelicenseistoissue,regardlessofwhetherornottheIntervenorscansupplementtheirinitialresponsestointerrogatories.InanOperatingLicenseproceeding,itisthebusinessoftheApplicanttoproveitisentitledtoalicense.ItistheresponsibilityofanApplicanttotakewhateverpreparatorymeasuresit5deemsappropriatetojustifyitsclaimthatitshouldbegrantedalicense.TheIntervenorsarenotpaidconsultantsoftheApplicant.IfthisApplicantcannotprepareitscasewithouttheassistanceoftheseIntervenors,thencertainlythelicenseshouldnotissue.Similarly,thetaxpayershavegonetogreatexpensetoprovidetheCommissionwithampleStaffresourcestoevaluatewhetherornottheApplicantisentitledtoalicense.ThetaxpayersarenotpayingtheseIntervenorstopre-paretheStaffforitsroleinthisproceeding.Further,eveniftheComnissionweretogranttheseIntervenorsfinancialassistanceasrequested,theroleoftheIntervenorinthelicensingproceedingistoprovideacheckandbalancetotrytoensurethatthepublichealthandsafetyareprotected.8ynomeans,underanycircumstances,isittheresponsibilityofthese.oranyotherinter-venorstoassisttheStaffandApplicantinpreparationforthisproceeding.TheECHPIntervenorsnotethatundertheAdministrativeProcedureActof1946andtheAtomicEnergyActof1954,asamended,theburdenofproofrestsbothwiththeStaffandtheApplicant.TheStaffhasthe'responsibility toensurethattheactivij;iesoftheApplicantwillnotaffectthehealj;handsafetyofthepublic.TheApplicant,ontheotherhand,isrequiredtodemonstratesomelevelofcompetenceintheconstructionandoperationofitsfaci1ity.Inaddition,theCommission'sownrules(10CFR51.20(d)and51.21)requiretheApplicanttosearchoutandhighlightinformationcontrarytothepositionsadvocatedbytheApplicantandincludesuchinformationinitsEnvironmentalReport.Inshort,iftheApplicantiscompetenttorunanuclearpowerplant,andhasobeyedtheCommission'srules,andiftheStaffdoesthejobitgetspaidfor,therecanbenosurprisesintheupcomingevidentiaryhearing,regardlessofthepresenceorabsenceofIntervenors'esponsetointerrogatories.Ontheotherhand,iftherearesurprises,theneithertheStaffortheApplicant,orboth,havefailedtoupholdtheirrespectivestatutoryresponsibilities,andnooperatinglicenseshouldbegranted.DiscoveryupontheIntervenors,ashasoccurredinthisproceeding,isforthesolepurposeofannoyance,harrassment~,andoppression.Merespectfullyas):thisBoardtobearcarefullyinminditsresponsi-bilitiestoprotecttheconstitutionalandstatutoryrightsofcitizenj;ntervenors,particularlybecausetheseintervenorsareunschooledinadministrativelaw.InthewakeoftheThreeMileIslandaccidentandtheadmittedinadequacyofthatTMI-2NRClicensingreview,wewouldthinkthattheNRCwouldbeconcernedtoensurethatfurtheroperatinglicensesaregrantedonlyafterithasbeenascertainedthatthepublichealthandsafetywillbeproperlyprotected.HoweveritappearsthattheStaff,ratherthancomplywithitsstatutorydutiesisinsteadattemptingtorailroadtheECNPIntervenorsoutoftheSusquehannaproceedings.ECNPobjectstothisunfairtreatment.NearesendingacopyofthisdocumentregisteringourobjectionsdirectlytotheCommissioners,aswellastothePresidentialCommissioninvestigatingtheTiilIaccident.Me re,titratethatwehad,twomonthspriortotheTHIaccident,askedtohaveanNRCCommissionerserveonthisBoardinordertoavoidtheunusuallyheavy-handedfavoritismwhichhadcharacterizedtheTHI-2proceeding.Suet~favoritismhasindeedalreadybeenshowntotheApplicantandStaffthusfarinthisproceeding.ResponsestotheNRCStaffandApplitantInterrogatoriesbeyondtho.;ewhichwereproperlyandtimelysubmittedbyECNPwouldrequiremanymonthsofsortingthroughprivatelibrariesofdocumentsforeachInterrogatory.TimeywouldalsorequireextensivebibliographicsearchinthosedistantPublicDocumentRoomstowhichtheStaffhasreferredusinitsJune29,1979,refusaltosupplydiscoverydocumentsrequestedbyECNP.Furthermore,IntervenorshaveaccesstoonlypublishedinformationwhereastheStaffiscomposedofmanyindividualswhosejobitistobefamiliarwiththisinformation.AretheIntervenorstobebootedoutoftheseproceedingsbecausetheirtimelyresponseswerenottothesatisfactionofanNRClawyer,andbecausetheycannotpossiblyrespondinfullintheverefourteendaysallottedbythisBoard?SuchappearstobetheintentoftheStaffinordertoridthehearingsofapublic-interestpartythatraisestroublesomeissues,issueswhichtheNRCapparentlydoesnotwishtoconfront,evenaftertheThreeMileIslandaccident.(IssuesraisedatTHI-2havestillnotbeenresolvedayearandahalfafterthatlicensewasissued.)WenoteherethatthecounselfortheApplicant,whodemandsanswerstoanunprecedentedandoutrageousnumberofinterrogatories,isamemberofth>>samelawfirmwhichcontributedsomuchinturningtheTHI-2licensingproceedingintoacharadeandcarnivalsideshow.TherecanbelittledoubtthatcounselfortheApplicant.istryingtoscuttleECNPin.this-proceed.".ngonproceduraltechni-calities,inordertopreventarepeatoftheTHI-2humiliationhislawfirm suffered.TheBoardstatedinitsAugust24OrdertheimportanceofdiscoverytotheApplicant(atp.6).ThefactthatIntervenorsfromECNPmemberorganizationshaveparticipatedinthreeconstructionpermitproceedings(NewboldIsland1&2,Limerick182,andFulton182)andthreeoperatinglicenseproceedings(TMI-l,PeachBottom253,andTMI-2)without,toourrecollectionandknowledge,everhavingbeenaskedtoanswerasingleinterrogatoryordiscoveryrequestcastsadarkcloudofdoubtovertheBoard'sstatement.Mealsonotethatir~,eachoftheabovementionedproceedingstheApplicantsultimatelygotwhattheyrequested.ThequoteofferedbytheBoardinsupportofitsridiculousstatementonlydetractsfromthecredibilityofthisBoardandtheBoardwhichmadethequotedstatement.TherecordofASLBsingrantingcomnercialnuclearpowerplantapplicationsisperfect;nonehaseverbeenrejectedbyanASLB.Sotheassertion.thatanappTicantmayhaveaburdentodischargethat"maybeimpossible"notonlyhasnobasiswhatsoeverinfact,buttheassertionofsuchaludicrousideardegradestheentireprocess.Furthermore,ifindeedtheApplicantissurprisedbythetestimonyandcross-examinationprovidedbytheIntervenors,theApplicantcanmoveforanextensionoftimetorespondtotheinformationprovidedatthehearing.Inanyeventsincetheproposedtestimonyissubmitted21dayspriortohearing,anyinabilityoftheApplicanttoprepareforhearingsuggests.thattheApplicantisnotccmpetenttooperatetheSusquehannareactors.Fairnesscanonlybeapproachedbycarefulcontemplationofallofthe1Tothebestofourrecoljection(sincethetranscriptisnotavailabletous)theBoardstatedinthePrehearingConferenceinthisproceedingthatitwasfamiliarwiththerecord>ntheTMI-2proceeding.IfsorequestedbytheBoard,wewouldbewill.ingtodescribebrieflysomeexamplesofthemannerinwhichem-barrassmentwascausedtotheStaffandthelawfirmoftheApplicantintheTMI-2proceeding.SeethyrecordintheTMI-2proceeding. parties'filings,atabareminimum.InthecaseofthisMemorandumandOrder(M50),thisminimalstandardwasnotapproached.TherulingscamedowngrantingthetheStaffandApplicanteverythingtheyrequestedanddenyingthevariousinter-venorseverythingtheyrequested,whereaspreciselytheoppositeresultwasinorder.TheHoardinitsMEOdoesnotrevealthatithasreadandunderstoodanyoftheparties'ilings,eventhoughtheHoardsideswiththeStaffandApplicant.TheBoardhasclearlyfailedtocometogripswiththesheermagnitudeoftheApplicant'sdiscoveryrequest.Werepeatwhatwestatedearlier:twothousandsevenhundredinterrogatoriesconstituteaburdenofextraordinarymagnigude.whosepurposeisnoneotherthanharrassment.Twothousandsevenhundredinter-rogatoriesbasedonaboutadozencontentionsworksouttoabout200interroga-toriespercontention.ThisnumberofquestionsisoppressiveandinappropriatelyburdensomeundertheCommission'srules,2.740(c).WemustnoteherethattheBoardinitsAugust24thMemorandumandOrderclaimsithas"mitigatedtheburden"oftheApplicantinterrogatories(atp.12).TheBoardinfacthasonlyIeducedthenumberoftheseinterrogatoriesfromtwothousandsevenhundred(2700)totwothousandsixhundredtwenty-eigh't(2628).'TheApplicantwithdrewfourofitsquestions,eachofwhichwascomposedoftwenty-eightparts..Inaddition,theBoardhasrequestedtheseIntervenorstoIspecifyindetailourobjectionswewishtoexpress,ifany,toeachofthese2628interrogatories--plusthosefromtheStaff--allinameretwoweeks.TheBoard-apparentlydoesnotrealizethat,justasanswering2700(or2628)lquestionsisextraordinarilyoppressive,sotoospecifyingwhyeachof,the2700(2628)isburdensomeisalsooppressive.

TheECNPIntervenorssubmitthattoansweralloftheApplicant'sv\~0interrogatorieswouldtakemanymonths-mostofayear-ofeffort,evenifallotherpreviouslyscheduledcomnitmentsandactivitiesoftheIntervenors'epresentativesweretobeterminated,whichtheycannotbe.IfindeedtheApplicantorStaffcanjustifytheneedfortheseIntervenor'oprovidesuchresponsetothisenormousnumberofinterrogatories,theECNPIntervenorsrequesttheBoardtoorderapostponementofthedue-datefortheanswerstotheApplicant'sinterrogatoriesuntilSeptember15.1980,attheveryearliest.AnalternativewouldbefortheApplicantvoluntarily,aswepreviouslysuggested,orunderBoardordertoreduceitsinterrogatoriestoarationalanddefensiblenumberandcalloffitspurelyretaliatory,vindictive,qndpunitivecampaignagainstthesein)ervenors.Mithregardtoour(:imelyanswerstotheStaff'sinterrogatories,theMemorandumandOrderoftheBoardisambiguousonthe'subjectofthese);ntervenors'esponses.TheBoardappearstoorderECNPtoreanswertheStaff'squestions.However,ECNPhasalreadyattemptedtoanswertheStaff'squestionsandispre-ventedfromfurtherattem'ptingtoanswertheinterrogatoriesinpartbecausetheBoardhasnotinformedECNPwhichspecificquestionsneedtobereanswe>ed.Our.15problemhereknowingwhichquestionstoreanswer:dowereansweronlythosedescribedby.theStaffas"evasive,"ordowereanswerallquestionsobjectedtobytheStaff?Ifthelatter,thenwhy?TheStaffappearsfarmoreinterestedinvolumethenincontent,nomatterwhatourresponsewas.ECNPhasmadeagoodfaithefforttoanswertheStaff'squestions.Furthermore,howarewetoknowbeforehandatwhatpointtheStaffwillbesatisfiedwithouranswers?TheStaffandApplicantcouldverywelloccupytheIntervenorswithansweringandreansweringinterrogatoriesuntilthedateofthehearing,effectivelypreventingusfrompreparingforthehearingandtherebypreventingusfromassistingtheBoardincompilingafullandcompleterecord.TheM50oftheHoarddoesnot,offeracluetothesematters. InitsM50,theBoardstateditsconcernaboutallowingapartytodemandanswerstoquestionswhileatthesametimethatpartyrefusedtoanswerquestionsdirectedtoit.(SeeM&0,p.10).TheBoardcautionsanotherIntervenorabouttheseriousnessofthis"offense."YettheBoardsitsbackwhiletheNRCStafftakesexactlythisposition.TheStaffdemandsanswersfromECNPandrefusestocomplywithECNP'sdiscoveryrequest.TheStaffhasnotIsuppliedasingledocumentrequestedbyECNPnorhastheStaffmovedforaprotectiveorder.ThisfailuretoprovidedocumentsrequestedbyECNP,ofcourse,compromisesandprejudicestheabilityofECNPtoprepareitscase.The<<*\ECNPIntervenorssubmitthatifthethreatofbanishmentfromaproceedingisathreatthatcanbeheldovertheheadsofIntervenors,thenfairness(under10CFR2.718)wouldrequirethatsuchathreatalsobeleveledattheNRCStaff.MithrespecttotheStaff'sfirstGeneralInterrogatory,andwith:respecttomanyifnotmostofStaffinterrogatories,ECNP,forreasonsstatedinourpreviousfiling~hasnotyetobtaineditswitnesses.FortheBoardtorequiretheinformationrequestedbyStaff~60dasinadvanceofhearingofwitnessesisacleardenialofdueprocessandiscontrarytotheletterandspiritoftheCoomission'sownregulations.Inotherproceedings,oneortwoweekshasbeenconsideredentirelyadequate.TheStaffproposestoprohibitIntervenorsfromusingatthetimeofhearinganydocumentswhicharenotnowidentifiedinresponseItothisinterrogatory.Theseproposedlimitationsandprohibitions,whenccmbinedwiththeStaff'srefusaltosupplythedocumentsrequested*monthsagobytheIntervenors,constituteaneffortbytheStafftodepriveusofourrightsasparticipantsinthisproceeding(10CFR2.743(a)).TheStaffhasprovidednovmeaningfuljustificationfortheseunusualstrictures.Menote,forexample,that,intheThreeMIleIsland,Unit2,operatinglicenseproceeding,theStaff'stestimonyonthenuclearfuelcyclewas introducedinthemidstoftheevidentiaryproceedingwithoutany60daysoftvraafilinginadvanceofthehearingdate;ECNPcanhardlybeexpectedtohavecompletedthepreparationandsubstanceofitsentirecaseatthistageoftheproceedings.ECNPobjectstothisandGeneralInterrogatoryrequestsaprotectiveorder,becausetheStaffha,;providedhnojustificationfortheseunusualstricturesandbecausetheStaff'srequestisburdensome,oppressive,andisintendedtoharrasstheseIntervenors.WithrespecttotheStaff'ssecondGeneralInterrogatory,ithimpossibleforECNPtohaveassembledthedocumentsrequested-itsentirecase-atthetimeoftheFirstRoundDiscoveryrequests.Itispatentlyabsurd,furthermore,toexpectorrequest,muchlessorder,theidentificationofalldocumentstobeusedincross-examinationofwitnessesfortheotherpartieswhohavenotyetbeenrequiredorevenaskedtoidentifytheirwitnesses.Furthermore,ECNPdoesnothavethefundstoproduceanydocumentsfortheStaffasrequested.Inaddition,itisthe'Staff'sresponsibilitytoprepareforthishearingonitsown,sincetheyandApplicanthavethelegalburdenofproof.WeobjecttothisGeneralInterrogatoryandrequestaprotectiveorderbecausetheStaff'grequestisburdensome,oppressive,constitutesanundueexpense,andisintendedforharrassmentpurposes.ECNPIntervenorssubmitthefollowingspecificobjectionstothedetailed2InterrogatoriesoftheSgff.2ECNPIntervenorsdonotfeelitisappropriateheretolistspecificobjectionstotheApplicant'sinterrogatoriesaboveandbeyondthoseobjectionsli~tedelsewhereinthisfiling,duetotheextraordinarilyburdensomenature(IfApplicant'sinterrogatories,However,wenotethatmostofthegeneralobjectionswhichfollowinthetextaboveareapplicablealsototheApplicant'sinterroga-tories. InterrogatoryG-1and2Al1S-1.2-7S-5.1-3S-5.6-7S-l.ll-14S-7.2-3S-8.4S-1.8S-1.9-10S-3.1-4S-1.1-9S-5.6-71.TheECNPIntervenorsobjecttothe60dayrequirementrequestedbytheStaffthatECNPidentifyallitswitnesses.thesubstanceoftheirtestimonies,andalldocumentstoberelieduponforevidence,examination,andcross-examination.SincetheStaffitselfrefusedtomakeavailabletotheIntervenorsthebackgroundinformationtheIntervenorsrequestedmonthsago,theStaffputstheIntervenorsinanimpossibleposition:theStaffrefusestoforwardnecessarydocumentsuponwhichtheIntervenorswouldrelyandrequireforpreparationoftheircase,andthendemandstheidentificationofdocumentsto-.berjliedupon.ThisdemandoftheStaffconstitutesacontinuingoppressivehaprass-mentoftheIntervenors.TheIntervenorsmoveforaprotectiveordersothatdiscoverynotbehadunderthisburdensome(andimposs'ible)schedule,butinsteadbehad,ifitisnecessaryatall,only;totheextentprovid'edunderthecommission'srules,2.743(b).(whichprovideonlythatwritteptestimonybesubmittedfifteendayspriortothescheduleddayofthehearingfor'hattestimony.)2.Thedocuments,discussionsconferences,researchreports,andallothersourcematerials,experiences,andreflectionsusedbyECNPinformulatingitscontentionsanditsresponsestotheSt'.affInterrogatoryrepresentanaccumulationofinformation,knowl,t!ige,analysisandsyn;:hesisovertheperiodofmorethanadecade.~3.TheStaffrequestofECNPforalistingofthe"incorrectassumption(s),"theeffectofincorrectassumptions,andwhatassumptionsormodelsshouldbeused,andwhattheeffectof.s<<chassumptionsormodelswouldbe,-iswhollyoutofplace..TheSI:affhastheburdenofproof(10CFR2.732)toestablishthatitsa'sum-ptionsarecorrect.TheInterv'enorsdonothave.thetime,money,orexpertisetodotheworkforwhichtheNRCStaffitselfgetspaid.ECNPrequestsaprotectiveorderthatdiscoverynotbehadassuchwouldbeinconsistentw'iththeCommission'srules(2.732):anysuchdiscoverywouldconstituteanundueburdenandexpense,4.ECNPdoesnotunderstandthisineptlyphrasedquestionanymorenowthanitdidbefore,sincetheStaffhasnotclarifiedthequestionfollowing'our<nitialresponse.MethereforeagainrequestfromtheStaffclarificationwhichisconsistentwith10CFR2.732.However,wenotethattherecord.intheThreeMileIsland,Unit2proceedingsdemonstratesthatontheorderofonemillionfuturehumandeathswouldoccurdueto-futurereleasesofradon.attributabletoeachyear'sfuelsupplyforthereactor.Tospecifyeachofthesefuturehealtheffectsandhoweachiscausedwouldbeburdensomeandoppressiveintheextreme.Itwould,infact,obviouslybeimiIossible,sincewecannotforeseeexactlyhoweachoftheseonemillionprematuredeathsperannualfuelrequirementwilloccur.Under10CFR2.740(c)wethereforemoveforaprotectiveorder.5.ThismatteristhesubjectofongoingproceedingsbeforetheCommission,ofwhichtheECNPrepresentativesareapart(seeALAB-562).TheECNPIntervenorshavemadenocalculationsorassumptionsbeyondthosealreadythoroughlydocumentedandinthepossessionoftheStaffinthoseproceedingscoveredinALAB-562.Methereforerequesta3SeeaddendumnotefollowingResponse14,p.17 S-l.10-155-9.7protectiveorderthatdiscoveryonthissubjectnotbehadasitisundulyburdensome,expensive,constitutesharrassmentoftheECNPIntervenors,andisrepetitiveofinformationalreadyinthehandsoftheStaff.Alternatively,werequestthattheentirerecordintheongoingradonproceedingbeincorporatedbyreferenceinthisproceedinginresponsetotheStaff'sinterrogatory.Asafurtheralternative,wemovethattheSusquehannaproceedingbeheldinabeyanceuntilcompletionoftheradonproceedingcurrentlyunderway.pursuanttoALAB-480.6.InNROCv.USNRC(547F.2d633),rev.onothergrounds,atp.639,note12,theCourtobserved,inpart,Theenvironmentaleffectstobeconsidered...arethoseforthefulldetoxificationperiod....S-2.1-5S-8.1-3S-9.1-6S-.18.1-3S3.5S-1.10S-2.5S-5.1S-5.1-9S-6.2-4S-7.2-3S>>7.6-10UntiltheStaffcanshowthatthissimplecriterionismet,thecriterionhasnotbeenmet(10CFR2.732).ECNPhasmadenocalculationsorpssumptionsforanyisotopeotherthanradon-222.Seeresponse4,ybove.7.ECNPrequestsaprotectiveorderthatdiscoverynotbehadofECNPforcontentionsandpositionsnotsponsoredbyECNPinit-filings.InitsinterrogatoriestheStaffmisrepresentsmanygfECNP'scontentions.Oiscoveryunderthisconditionconstitutesanundueburdenandexpense.8.SinceECNPbelievesthecost-benefitbalancehasalreadybeentippedagainstanynuclearpowerplantonthebasisofradon-222emissions(seek4,above),ECNPhasmadenofurthercalculatiopsconcerningcost/benefitanalysis.Furthermore,itisnotourburdentodevelopanalternativecost/benefitanalysis;itis,instead,theStaff'sandApplicant'sburdentosetforththefiullandcompletecost/benefitanalysis(10CFR51.20(b),51.23(c)apd51.23(f).9.TheECNPIntervenorshavereasontobelievethatadocumentexists(requestedbytheNRCondiscoverybyECNP)inEnglishtranslationbytheNRCfromtheoriginalGermanwhichdescribeshowcertainNRCmodelsunderestimatetheeffectsof,certainradio-isotopesonman.UntiltheNRCsuppliesthisdocument,requestedmonthsago,itisimpossibletoanswerthisquestion.ECNPrequestsaprotectiveorderthatnodiscoverybehadonthis.subjectuntiltheStaffsuppliestherequesteddocument,asthisdemandoftheStaffotherwisewouldconstituteanimpossibleburden.10.ECNPhasmadenoindependentassessmentconcerningwhatmodels,assumptions,conversionfactors,calculations,andsoonshouldbeused,beyondtheinformationonradonalreadyinthepossessionoftheStaff(seeALAB-562).Atanyrate,thisistheprovinceoftheStaff(10CFR2.732).ECNPthereforerequestsaprotectiveorderthatdiscoverynotbehadonthisinterrogatoryassuchwouldconsti-tuteanundueburden. S-6.1S-6.4S-7.16S-6.1-5S-7.1S-7.4-15S-6.1-5S-7.16,S-1.10S-7.4-5S-7.11S-8.4ll.IntheSalemUnit1spentfuelpoolcompactionproceeding(Oocket'No.,50-272),theStaffhasconcludedthattheTMI-2accidentwasindeedaClass9accident.Asaresult,ECNPbelievesthisquestiontohavebeenfullyansweredinourpreviousresponsetoStaffinterrogatories.WethereforerequestaprotectiveordersincetheburdenofestablishingthatthehealthandsafetyofthepubliccanbepreservedistheConmission'sresponsibilityunderlaw.12.ECNPhasrequestedbackgroundinformationonthissubjectondiscoveryfromtheStaff,andnonehasbeenforwardedasrequested.Beyondrepeatedstatementsinthepressconcerningthissubject,theIntervenorscansupplynofurtherinformationnotalreadyidentified.TheStaff,again,hasthefull.burdenofproof(10CFR2.732).13.ECNPbelievesthisquestionhasb'eenansweredfully.Wethere-forerequestaprotectiveordersothatoppressionofthese.Inter-venorsatthehandsoftheStaffwillceaseandfurtherharrassmentwi.llbeprevented.I14'.ECNPhasmadenoindependentcalculationsconcerningthisinterrogatory.Thebasisofourconcerniscontainedmostconciselyin"NuclearRegulatoryComnissionStaffReportConcerningAllegationsbyRobertPollari,"February28,1976,pages146-7.Nothingipthatreportaltersthpseconclusions.WenoteagainthatECNPhasIequestedupdatedmaterialsonthissubjectfromtheStaffmonthsago,butnonehasbeensuppliedtotheIntervenors.Wemoveforaprotectivi~orderunder10CFR2.740(c),asadditionalrequirementofresponsewouldbeundulyburdenscme,oppressive,andexpensiveoftimeandresearchcapabilitieswhichtheseIntervenorsdonotpossess.\AddendumtoResponse2:;Therefore,nospecificdocumentscanbecitedasthesoleorprimarygroundfortheECNPcontentionsorotherpositionsrelativetoissuesincontention.Wemoveforaprotectiveorder,sincetheproductionofmaterialstosatisfytheStaff'sdemandwouldbeburdensomeandoppressiveintheextreme,undulyexpensive,andimpossibleaswell.TheECNPIntervenorsrequested,duringthePrehearingConferenceinJanuary,1979,(tr.372-3,ascitedintheBoard'sSpecialPrehearingConferenceOrdero,March6,1979,transcriptnotavailabletotheseIntervenors)thataCormissioneroftheNRCserveasamemberoftheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoardinthisproceeding.TheBoardstatedinitsMarch6Order(atp.83)thattherequestwasbeyondthescopeoftheBoard'sauthority,thatitwouldbeinappropriatefortheBoardtotake*anyaction,butthat"[i]fitsodesirestheComnissioncouldofcoursereconstitutetheBoardtoincludeoneormoreofitsmembers." TheECNP"IntervenorshereformallyrequestthattheCommissionreconstitutethisBoardsothatamemberoftheCommissionwhohasexpressedanespecialinterestinassuringtheevenhandednessofthelicensingprocessbysoservingbecomea,gASLBmemberfortheseSusquehannaOperatingLicenseproceedings.Inlightofquestionsasked,lessonslearned,accidentssuffered,anddamageexperiencedbymembersoftheEnvironmentaICoalitiononNuclearPowerinconsequenceoftheThreeMileIsland,Unit2,accidentandtheinadequacyofthelicensingprocessforChatreactor,webelieveitisentirelyproperandin.accordancewiththeComnissjon'smandatetoprotectthepublichealthandsafetyforamemberofgeeComnissiontoserveonthisBoard.WeasktheBoardtocertifythisquestiontotheCommission.WithregardtotheBoard'scommentsinitsAugust24MemorandumandOrder(atp.16)pertainingtotheStaff'srequestsforadepositionfromMrs.MaryK.Creasy,amemberofECNP,these,IntervenorsurgetheBoardtoordertheNRCStafftodischargeitsregulatoryresponsibilitiesbyundertakingafullinvestigationofthoseallegationsmadeintheLimitedAppearancestatementofMrs.CreasyattheJanuary,1979,PrehearingConference.WeaskfurtherthattheBoardordertheStaffattorneytoceasehiscontinuingharrassmentofthislimitedappeara~cewitness.HiscampaignisbasedonnothingmoresubstantialthananewspaperaccountinwhichareporterattributedtoMrs.Creasystatementsandmotivesthatarenothers.ECNPIntervenorsregardtheStaffattorney'spursuitofthismatterasfurtherevidencethattheNRCStaffareunwillingtofulfilltheirlawfulregulatoryfunctionsandinsteadareintentuponannoyanceandpitilessharrassmentofmembersofthepublicandtheintervenorsinsuchwaysastointimidatethem,burdenthemunduly,andcausethemtobeexpelledfromtheseproceedingswhichareimportanttothepublichealthandsafety,andtherebytodenytheECNPmembersdueprocess. ForthisBoardtoimposeorthreatentoinflictpunitivemeasuresontheIntervenorsintheSusquehanna1and2proceedingsisindicativeofNRC'sinsensitivityorapurposiveintenttoforcetheECNPIntervenorsandothersoutoftheoperatinglicensehearings.Wearecompelledtoaskifthep'urposeissheervindictivenessoradesperateattempttohidetheinabilityofAppli~.antandStafftoconvincetheCommissionthattheSusquehannareactorsandtheirassociatednuclearfacilitiescanbeoperatedsafely.InviewofthecontinuingtragedyatThreeMileIsland,theattitudesshownthusfarinthisproceedingbyattorneysfortheStaffandApplicantaretrulyominousandugly.TheECNPIntervenorsrespectfullyrequest,forallthereasonsdiscussedabove,thatthe'oardreconsiderandreviseitsMemorandumandOrderofAugust24,1979,inviewoftheparticularandgeneralobjectionsthatECNPhasraisedpreviouslyandagaininthisfiling.Respectfullysubmitted,lChaunceyKepfordRepresentativeoftheIntervenorsDatedthisdayofSeptember,1979JudithH.BohnsrudCo-DirectorEnvironmentalCoalitiononNuclearPower ENVIRONMENTALCOALITIONONNUCLEARPOWERCo.Directors:Mr.GeorgeBoomsma-R.D.<<1,PeachBottom,Pa,17563717548.2836Dr.JudithJohnsrud-433OrlandoAvenue,StateCollege,Pa.16801814.2374800Weatheundersignedpersons'ffirmthatthestatementsinResponsesofECNPIntervenorstoSoardMemorandumandOrderComnellinIntervenorsto.4nswerAvolicantand.'staffInterroatoriesaretrueandcorrecttothebestofourknowledgeandunderstanding./ChaunceyZepferdRepresentativeoftheIntervenorsJudithH.JohnsrudCo-DirectorBxvtronmentalCoalitiononQxclearPowerDated.andwitnessedthisJ'1sarofSeptembera1979rg(RN'losucs:K:fDBE'CtEl!itHls,..../7SDP1PME~leanB.Harris,thotaryPublicStateCollege,CentreCounty,Pa.16801hVjCommissionExpliesMarch16,1981',

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICESEP2i/S7Sr~clIM5eaH&SecSonIIherebcertifythatcopiesofRESPONSESOFECNPINTERVENORSTOBOARDMEMONDUMANDORDERCOMPELLINGU.S.Mail,FirstClass,havebeenservedonthefollowingbydepositintheU..ai,irpostagepaid,onthis++dayofSeptember,1979:CharlesBechhoefer,EsquireChairman,ASLBPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555Mr.Glenn0.BrightASLBPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555Dr.OscarH.ParisASLBPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCoomissionWashington,D.C.20555AtomicSafety5LicensingBoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCoamissionWashington,D.C.20555AtomicSafety5LicensingAppealBoardPanelU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCoranissionWashington,D.C.20555JamesM.Cutchin,IV,EsquireOffice,ExecutiveLegalDirectorU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555DocketingandServiceSectionOfficeoftheSecretaryU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCoranissionWashington,D.C.20555JaySilberg,EsquireShaw,Potts,Pittman,andTrowbridge1800MStreetNWWashington,D.C.20036Mrs.IreneLemanowitzButz,ChairpersonCitizensAgainstNuclearDangerP.O.Box377,R.D.1Berwick,Pa.18603Mrs.ColleenMarsh558A,R.D.4MountainTop,Pa.18707GeraldSchultz,EsquireSusquehannaEnvironmentalAdvocates500SouthRiverStreetWilkes-Barre,Pa.18702ThomasM.Gerusky,DirectorBureauofRadiationProtectionDepartmentofEnvironmentalResourcesCoomonwealthofPennsylvaniaP.O.Box2063Harrisburg,Pa.17120W/ChaunceyKepfordRepresentativeofeECNP!ntervenors r,GF".i~'..g,i.ii:.;;:~hvsv.s~slesi~~Cs~l~Postmar'le~~I~CopiesOesiv.'Add'lCc"is='.".:";"=.:!2SpCCiellDi4ffade'tiCs1