ML020580584
| ML020580584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/2002 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A | |
| References | |
| +adjud/rulemjr200506, 50-423-LA-3, ASLBP 00-771-01-LA, RAS 3955 | |
| Download: ML020580584 (5) | |
Text
RAS 3955 February 25, 2002 DOCKETED 02/26/02 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. )
) Docket No. 50-423-LA-3 (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit No. 3) )
)
NRC STAFFS MOTION TO COMPEL CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST MILLSTONE AND LONG ISLAND COALITION AGAINST MILLSTONE TO RESPOND TO NRC STAFFS FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS DIRECTED TO INTERVENORS IN THE REOPENED PROCEEDING INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.740(f) and 2.740b, the NRC Staff (Staff) hereby moves the Licensing Board to compel Intervenors Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone (CCAM) and Long Island Coalition Against Millstone (CAM) (collectively, Intervenors) to provide the answers required by the NRC Staffs First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Intervenors in the Reopened Proceeding, dated January 25, 2002.
BACKGROUND The NRC Staff served its First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Intervenors in the Reopened Proceeding by mail, with a copy by electronic mail, on January 25, 2002. Thus, Intervenors were required to respond by February 13, 2002, allowing the fourteen days established by 10 C.F.R. § 2.740(b) plus the five days for service by mail established by 10 C.F.R. § 2.710.
The First Set consisted of two general interrogatories and two specific interrogatories plus requests for documents related to the answers to the four interrogatories. By these interrogatories the staff sought information regarding the persons that Intervenors expect to provide sworn affidavits or declarations for the written presentation required in this Subpart K proceeding by
10 C.F.R. § 2.1113. This written presentation is scheduled to be filed on March 18, 2002. The Staff also sought to discover the basis for Intervenors assertion that the loss of accountability of two fuel rods at Millstone Unit 1bears on the adequacy of administrative controls currently in place at the Millstone Unit 3 spent fuel pool. (A copy of the Staffs First Set is attached to this motion as Exhibit 1.) As of this date, the Staff has not received answers to its interrogatories, nor has it received objections or a motion for a protective order.
ARGUMENT The discovery sought by the Staff is appropriate and Intervenors responses should be compelled.
The regulations pertinent to interrogatories require that each interrogatory be answered unless objected to, in which case the reasons for objection are to be stated in lieu of an answer.
10 C.F.R. § 2.740b(b). Intervenors have neither answered nor objected to these interrogatories.
Moreover, Intervenors have not applied for a protective order pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.740(c).
Consequently, Intervenors are obligated to respond to these interrogatories.
In general, discovery extends to any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. § 2.740(b)(1). Interrogatories may be used to elicit factual information reasonably related to a partys position in the proceeding, including data used, assumptions made, and analyses performed by the party . .. . 10 C.F.R. § 2.740(b)(3). Thus, the Staffs interrogatories are proper, as they are designed to discover the names and qualifications of the expert witnesses who will provide the affidavits that Intervenors must file on March 18, 2002, as well as the subject matter of and supporting documentation for Intervenors written filing.
Intervenors failure to provide information on which their experts will rely improperly denies the Staff the opportunity to develop its case. See Tenbarge v Ames Taping Tool Systems, 190 F.3d 862, 865 (8th Cir. 1999); Uresil Corp. v Cook Group, Inc., 135 F.R.D. 168, 173 (N.D. Ill.
1991)([I]n order to sufficiently answer expert witness interrogatories one must provide the theories
which the experts will use . . ., a precise statement of the subject matter upon which the answer is based, an explanation of the terms used by the expert, and the rationale or reasons behind the experts answers. )(emphasis added). Furthermore, the failure of Intervenors to provide this information circumvents the very purpose of discovery - to narrow the issues and eliminate surprise. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)(Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end a party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession . . . thus reducing the possibility of surprise.)
Such disclosure is all the more important in a Subpart K proceeding such as this one, in which the parties must simultaneously file both the detailed written summary of their positions and all supporting facts and data. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.1113.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Intervenors failure to respond to Staffs interrogatories is without merit. Therefore, the Licensing Board should order Intervenors to answer the above-described requests. Because parties are scheduled to file the written presentations required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.7113 in Subpart K proceedings on March 18, 2002, some three weeks from today, the Staff requests expedited consideration of this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/RA/
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 25th day of February, 2002
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC. ) Docket No. 50-423-LA-3
)
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit No. 3) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFFS MOTION TO COMPEL CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST MILLSTONE AND LONG ISLAND COALITION AGAINST MILLSTONE TO RESPOND TO NRC STAFFS FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS DIRECTED TO INTERVENORS IN THE REOPENED PROCEEDING in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system; or by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system with copies by electronic mail, as indicated by an asterisk; or by deposit in the U. S. Postal Service with copies by electronic mail as indicated by a double asterisk this 25th day of February, 2002.
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman* Dr. Charles N. Kelber*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T 3F-23 Mail Stop: T 3F-23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-Mail copy to CXB2@nrc.gov.) (E-Mail copy to CNK@nrc.gov)
Dr. Richard F. Cole Office of the Secretary*
Administrative Judge ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: O 16-C-1 Mail Stop: T 3F-23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-Mail copy to HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov)
(E-Mail copy to RFC1@nrc.gov)
Office of the Commission Appellate Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Adjudication Mail Stop: T 3F-23 Mail Stop: O 16-C-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001
Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq.** David A. Repka, Esq. **
Northeast Utilities Service Co. Winston & Strawn 107 Selden Street 1400 L. Street, N.W.
Berlin, CT 06037 Washington, DC 20005-3502 (E-Mail copy to cuocolm@nu.com) (E-Mail copy to drepka@winston.com)
Nancy Burton, Esq.** Diane Curran, Esq.**
147 Cross Highway Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg Redding Ridge, CT 06876 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600
( E - M a i l c o p y t o Washington, D.C. 20036 nancyburtonesq@hotmail.com (E-Mail copy to dcurran@harmoncurran.com)
/RA/
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff