ML17138B822
| ML17138B822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR DANGERS, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8103040574 | |
| Download: ML17138B822 (5) | |
Text
Z~l eae+d
'b In the Matter of:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Glenn 0. Bright dsj <r g
gggggD gsNRG MAR 2 198) >
pffice OE the Sectehry.
pocketing 5 Sewce Sra'nch 4 '/y PENNSYLVANIA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC. COOPERATIVE, INC.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
0-387 OL February 27, 1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Directing CAND and ECNP to Res ond to Interro atories By our Memorandum and Order Establishing New Discovery Schedule for Safety Issues, dated.
November 12, 1980, we required that responses to first round discovery requests on safety issues be filed by January 16, 1981 (except with respect.to one issue, emergency
- planning, where a later
~date was 'established).
The discovery requests in question had originally been filed in May, 1979, but the'iling of responses had been deferred by virtue of several orders of thi,s Board.
(One intervenor, Colleen Marsh, supplied her responses during the summer of 1979.)
As a result of our November 12, 1980 Order, filings were received from the remaining intervenors Susquehanna Environmental Advocates (SEA),
g5o>
5 I
8X 03040 +~~
6 I/o
\\
~
~ g v
~
II
Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers (CAND), and Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (ECNP).
SEA provided substantive responses to all of the admitted safety contentions of which it is a sponsor; in doing so, it satisfied the requirements we earlier imposed for answering the interroga-V tories.
CAND and ECNP, however, submitted responses (each dated January;15, 1981) which, in effect, declined to provide substantive
\\
answers to ~an of the interrogatories.
(CAND indicated that it would respond to interrogatories on the emergency-planning contentions by the February 23, 1981 deadline we had established for such responses; thus far we have not received CAND's filing.)
As a result of CAND's and ECNP's failure to provide answers to inter-rogatories, the Staff. on January.30, 1981 filed a motion for an order compelling CAND and ECNP to.respond to. the Staff's discovery requests on health and safety issues.
The Applicants filed a response on February 12, 1981 supporting the Staff's request and, additionally, seeking the same re'lief with respect to their own interrogatories.
Neither ECNP nor CAND jp
'I has responded to the Staff's motion (or, thus far, to the Applicant's response).
I Throughout this proceeding, we frequently have had occasion to point to the obligations of intervenors to respond to discovery requests con-cerning their contentions.
CAND and ECNP have both been the object of comments of this type, arising from their failures on, various occasions We express no opinion as to the completeness or responsiveness of the 1/
. answers provided.
3 to respond properly to outstanding discovery requests.
The litany of discovery disputes involving ECNP is amply described by the Appeal Board in ALAB.-613, 12 NRC 317 (1980) and need not be reiterated by us here.
And the discovery disputes involving CAND are similar in nature, although varying in detail.
We now wish only to stress, as both we and 'the Appeal Board have emphasized previously, the importance of discovery in assisting a party to prepare its case properly.
CAND here states that it cannot respond to discovery without receipt of certain additional documents or information.
We have stated many times, however, that a party is required to reveal only such information as it currently possesses concerning its contentions; if it has no such informa-r'ion, it can so state.
Documents and other information received subsequently may change a party s answers, but the possibility they may do so is no excuse for not answering.
As for ECNP, its excuse that it has other more pressing
/'bligations has been previously rejected by us as well as the Appeal Board.
Suffice it to say that neither CAND nor ECNP have furnished adequate reasons for not:providing answers to interrogatories of both the Staff and Applicants.
We are here putting them on notice, that, if they do not provide substantive answers to the Staff.'s and Applicants'nterrogatories by the
, date specified herein, we propose to impose the following sanctions on their further participation with respect to the particular contentions involved.
(If answers are not furnished, we invite comments on these proposals.)
'n th'e first place, the failure to respond will be given weight by us in.ruling upon summary disposition motions.
Beyond that, we will not permit
L those parties to present an affirmative case on those contentions without specific permission from uswhich will be granted only if'both the names of witnesses and the substance of their testimony, and identification of I
relevant documents, is furnished to us and 'the other parties sufficiently in advance of the date on which prepared testimony would otherwise be due so that the Applicants and Staff may take the witnesses'epositions and examine the documents in question.
Finally, if they do not respond to I
discovery, CAND and ECNP will be required as a condition of engaging in cross-examination on the issues in question to furnish us and the parties a detailed outline of proposed cross-examination, including identification of documents to be relied on, no less than ten.(10) days prior to the commencement of the evidentiary hearing session in which the particular issue is to be considered.
l.
For the foregoing reasons, the Staff's motion is ~ranted.
It is, this 27th day of February,
- 1981, ORDERED
- That, CAND and ECNP respond to the Staff's and Applicants'utstanding interrogatories by no later than Friday, March 27, 1981.
'OR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f7 Charl es Bechhoe fer, Cha ir an ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE