ML19291A062
| ML19291A062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1979 |
| From: | Mark Flynn NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Cohen E, Cole R, Goodhope A NEW YORK, STATE OF, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904070056 | |
| Download: ML19291A062 (4) | |
Text
.
STATE OF NEW YORK. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 3p,g pUBLlC _Wb..mn R003HE GOVERNCR NELSON A. RCCVsEFELLER
"~
EMPIRE STATE PLAZA A LBAW( 12223 DUS Ltc SE RVICE CCY'AISSION Nl i
s.
s
[,
CHAR LES A. ZIELIN541 a
PCT E R M. SC HI F F fa Chairman M
1TED CORRESpoDEA*q c
ai C a nsei ECWA RO P. LA R K'N
. fge SAMUEL R. MAGISCN CARMEL CARRINGTCN %.
ay
%J Secretary HAROLD A JC A RY. JR.
g
- j
, gg,
ANNEF.MEAO g
Ng
/
KA REN 5. SURST!!N RsCHA RO 5. BCwg R b,%
N March 5, 1979 e
Hon. Edward A. Cohen Dr. George A.
Ferguson State of New York Professor of Nuclear Engineering
-Department of Public Service Howard University The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Washington, D.C.
20001 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hon. Donald F. Carson US Nuclear Regulatory Commission State of New York Department Washington, D.C.
20555 of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Ecard US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: Case 80006 and Docket 50-549 -- PASNY --
s' Greene County Gentlemen:
This letter expresses our objection to certain interrogatories served on staff of the Department of Public Service by the Power Authority and by Greene County et al.
Specifically, we object to PASNY interrogatory 36 (dated February 23, 1979 and received February 27, 1979) and to Greene County interrogatories 32, 34, 55 and 57 (dated February 23, 1979 and received February 26, 1979).
Greene County interrogatories 15 and 54 refer to Gecrge Machingten, Jchn Oyecn, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, among others.
For rather obvious reascns, we are ignoring these
" interrogatories."
7904070OSTo
March 5, 1979 Our objections, which are set out below, are being made within five days of our receipt of the interrogatories, as required by the scheduling ruling of January 5, 1979.
PASNY Interrogatory 36 (to DPS Terrestrial witness Jackson) 36.
Identify what analyses, studies, investiga-tions, field inspections, reconnaissance level investigations, field trips or reviews have been made by DPS Staff, DEC Staff or any other person of the terrestrial ecology at each of the eleven sites identified in FES Section'9.2.6 as preferrable or superior to the Cementon site.
Provide copies
~
of each writing memorializing any such effort.
We object on the grounds the interrogatory is beyond the scope of Mr. Jackson's testimony.
With the exception of Athens, which is discussed in detail, Mr. Jackson has not mentioned in his testimony any of the eleven sites identified in the FES as preferrable or superior to Cementon.
If PASNY believes NRC staff has raised an issue regarding the eleven sites, PASNY's interrogatories should be addrecsed to the NRC staff, not to a DPS witness.
Furthermore, the interrogatory is overly broad in that it asks a DPS witness to identify analyses, studies, etc.
made by "DEC staff or any other person..."
Greene County Interrogatories 32 and 34 (to DPS enaineerina economics witnesses Gordon and Lut y) 32.
Please refer to p.
34 of the Gordon-Lut:y testimony, lines 10-13.
Even if this contention were true, it is not improper to take this factor into account under Article VIII, since PASNY had no legal authorization to invest moneys in the project up to now?
If added interest on construction is taken into account, then hasn't the Article VIII evaluation been biased by PASNY's investments in advance of certification when Article VIII assumes those invest-ments to be made only after certification has been decided?
Please explain your answer in full.
.=
s March 5, 1979 34.
Please refer to p.
40 of the Gordon-Lut y testimony, lines 8-12.
Isn't the thrust of these remarks as follows:
PASNY has applied for an inferior site, but despite Article VIII, the Siting Board must take into account the costs that PASNY has incurred and will impose on customers due to its bad-decision?
How can such an approach be squared with Article VIII?
Please provide a full explanation.
These interrogatories do not attempt to discover the bases of the vitresses' conclusions nor do they ask for infor-mation which could reasonably lead to relevant information.
. Instead, these interrogatories are argumentative and call for legal judgments or conclusions.
Greene County Interrogatory 55 (to DPS nuclear fuel cost witness Becker) 55.
Would Dr. Becker please explain +,he problems of waste storage and disposal that have arisen at West Valley; evaluate how those problems were created; and identify.the total costs that are likely to be incurred to solve those problems.
The " total costs that are likely to be incurred to solve { West Valley's] problems" are site specific to West Valley and are not relevant to Dr. Becker's testimony on nuclear fuel costs for PASNY's proposed plant.
Greene County Interrogatory 57 (to DPS nuclear fuel cost witness Becker) 57.
Referring to p. 64 of the Becker testimony, lines 7-9, if the risks are realized and diversion to unauthorized or terrorists forces cccurs, who will care particularly about the advantages for long-term energy supply?
If possible, provide a cost-benefit analysis of this situation.
March 5, 1979 This interrogatory does not seek relevant information.
Instead, it is argumentative.
Respectfully submitted,
//
GW f*
MICHAEL FLY'm Staff Counsel cc: All Parties A