ML19262C082
| ML19262C082 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1980 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CASTRO, R. & HURSH, G. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001280259 | |
| Download: ML19262C082 (3) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
c.o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
q THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR _
CCC#
c i
-8 2 630#
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman 2
3b Dr. Richard F.
Cole
[-
OCS((pkgget$'{l O
Frederick J. Shon t, W
- EG' ins P
fv'
-)
In the Matter of
)
)
34CRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
)
Docket No. 50-312
)
(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station) )
)
ORDER RELATIVE TO THE NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INTERVENORS GARY HURSH AND RICHARD CASTRO (January 21, 1980)
On December 17, 1979, the NRC Staff filed a motion to compel Intervenors Gary Hursh and Richard Castro to respond to certain interregatories from their November 9, 1979 "First Set of.
Interrogatories to Gary Hursh and Richard Castro."
The Intervenors did not respond to the motion.
Response was due January 2, 1980.
In their response to Staff's November 9 interrogatories, Intervenors Hursh and Castro filed a blanket objection with respect to all but one of the Staff's 21 interrogatories, as requesting information which is not the responsi-bility or obligation of these petitioners to provide,"
and further stating, " Petitioners have stated the areas of concern, O y.
the Board has defined the scope of the hearinc,'itis now incumbent upon the Licensee and NRC Staff to demonstrate 1816 056
~ 8 c o 128 o e_5 7
_2_
convincingly that each and every contention is without merit and that Rancho Secto (sic) can operate safely". 1!
The NRC Staff argues that Intervenor has erroneously equated burden of proof in the evidentiary hearing and obligatica to respond to discovery.
The Board agrees.
All of the Staff interrogatories in question here appear to be directly related to the seeking of a better understanding of Intervenors' con-tentions and of the bases for these contentions and as such are legitimate inquiries which should be answered to the best of Intervenors' abilities.
Intervenors' objections on the basis of burden of proof do not apply when it comes to discovery and Intervenors Castro and Hursh are directed to review their responses and modify or/and supplement any answers which were affected by their burden of proof argument.
The Staf f also points out several instances where Intervenor failed to respond to parts of interrogatories.
Staff is entitled to a response and Intervenors are directed to respond.
The one remaining matter concerns parts C and D of Inter-rogatory 1 which Intervenors objected to as not being inter-rogatories.
The Board disagrees.
Interrogatories 1C and 1D request information directly related to the Intervenors' conten-tions and are legitimate areas of inquiry.
Accordingly, Inter-venors Hursh and Castro are directed to respond to Interrogatories es U")
C 1/
" Answers of Gary Hursh and Richard Castro to First Set of sC)
NRC Staff Interrogatories" undated but served by mail on January 7, 1980.
j ~w ,, j
. IC and ID also. Because of the schedule for hearings, Intervenors Cas'.ro and Hursh are directed to respond within 10 days of the date i of this Order. The motion is granted. IT iS SO ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD dLJJA,1 Ma ElidabethS. Bowers, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 21st day of January 1980. e 1816 058}}