ML19289F427
| ML19289F427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1979 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289F409 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906070356 | |
| Download: ML19289F427 (6) | |
Text
".
UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COM:1ISSI0f4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AftD LICEftSIt!G BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPAfiY J
Docket f!o. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
SitM-1773 for Oconee fluclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage at McGuire fluclear Station) fiRC STAFF'S BRIEF Ifl SUPPORT OF MOTI0ft FOR Aff ORDER TO COMPEL IfiTERVEfl0R, THE DAVIDS0:1 COLLEGE CHAPTER OF THE tiORTH CAROLIflA PUBLIC IftTEREST RESEARCH GROUP (PIRG), TO RESP 0:1D TO THE STAFF'S If1 TERR 0GATORIES OF MARCH 23,1979 On February 23, 1979, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board)
Esued an Order directing the parties to proceed with discovery.S The f1RC Staff (Staff) served its Second 5 ' of Interrogatories on the Intervenor, The Davidson College Cha! :er of the florth Carolina Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) on March 23, 1979 in accordance with the Board's Order and the Comnission's Rules of Practice.
The Staff's interrogatories concern PIRG's specific contention which was admitted by the Board's Order of February 27, 1979. 2_/ PIRG's contention is:
_l] " Order Concerning Discovery, Contentions and Scheduling (February 23, 1979)."
2/ Order Granting Intervention to Davidson College Chapter of the fiorth Carolina Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) (February 27, 1979)."
79060703sc 2231 265
That the prospect of a traffic accident involving a reactor-waste carrier and involving leakage of some of the contents of said carrier poses an emergency situation which public safety officials in Charlotte (i.e., police chief, fire chief, civil defense head, etc.), are not adequately prepared to handle in regards to protection of the public.
Each interronatory, filed by the Staff, requests information concerning the factual basis for PIRG's contention, and the identity of persons, including expert witnesses to be called by PIRG having knowledge" of discoverable matter.
The interrogatories are within the scope of permissible discovery. The Rules of Practice regarding discovery state:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privilege _, which is relevant to the subject a.atter involved in the proceeding, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.
In a proceeding... discovery...shall relate only to those matters in controversy rhich have been identified by the Commission or the presiding officer in the prehearing order entered at the conclusion of that prehearing conference.
- It is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2231 26>6
. The Staff's interrogatories fall squarely within 52.740(b)(1).
The purpose of the Staff's interrogatories is to ascertain the basic relevant facts underlying the PIRG contention at issue in this proceeding.
Such
' disclosure is the precise purpose of the applicable Comnission discovery rules and is necessary to insure complete trial preparation by the Staff in this proceeding.
Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 460-463 (1974). See also: Boston Edison Company, et al. (Pilgrim i{uclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30 1 f(RC 579, 583 (1975).
Conclusion PIRG's failure to respond to Staff's interrogatories is dilatory and is frustrating the orderly progress of this proceedinc Accordingly,11RC Staff requests the Board to grant Staff's motion, and to. order the PIRG to respond fully in writing, under oath or affirmation, to Staff's interrogatories of March 23, 1979 and to dismiss PIRG from these proceedings if it fails to fully respond to the Board's Order.
Respe + lly submitted,
/
l
,3 8
R hard K. Hoefling j
Counsel for 11RC Staff k
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of April,1979.
2231 267
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 70-2623
)
(Amendment to Materials License
)
SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear Station
)
Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage )
at McGuire Nuclear Station)
)
PROPOSED FORM 0F ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY OF THE DAVIDSON COLLEGE CHAPTER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC-INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP (PIRG)
The NRC Staff has moved pursuant to 10 CFR s2.740(f) for an Order to compel Intervenor to respond to certain interrogatories proposed by the Staff.
The Staff's second round of interrogatories were served on PIRG on March 23, 1979 in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Th'e'~ Boa rd has examined the interrogatories rad determined that they are reasonable and within the scope of permissible discovery as set forth in 10 CFR 92.740.
PIRG neither answered nor objected to any of the interrogatories as required by 10 CFR 52.740b(b) and 52.740(f) within the time allowed by the Commission's Rules of Practice.
PIRG may not unilaterally modify the 2231 208
a.
requirements for respor ses to interrogatories as set forth in 10 CFR s2.740(b). Provisions are allowed in the Rules of Practice for seeking an extension or reduction of time limits and stipulations with respect to time limits may oe arrived at by the parties.
In this instance, there is no stipulation concerning an extension of time.' flor has any motion been filed by PIRG seeking an extension of the time provided for by the Rules for responses to interrogatories.
PIRG has an obligation to supply the bases of its contentions in response to interroga'.ories requesti19 such information, and to answer such interrogatories under oath or affirmation.
~
The Board has reviewed the pleadings in this matter and finds as follows:
(1) PIRG has neither responded nor objected to the interrogatories in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR 32.740b(b) and 52.740(f).
(2) PIRG has unilaterally, without good causc-and contrary to the Rules of Practice and this Boaro'-
order of February 23, 1979 directing the parties to proceed with this discovery, failed to properly respond to the Staff's discovery request submitted to PIRG in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.
(3) Such tactics are dilatory and contrary to the orderly progress of this proceeding.
2231'269
Accordingly, the Board directs PIRG to respond fully to the Staff's interrogatories of March 23, 1979 no later than five (5) days from the date of this Order in writing and under oath or affirmation subject to dismissal of PIRG from these proceedings if it fails to comply with the Board's Order.
FOR ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Respectfully submitted, t&
dd a
chardK. Hoe! ling f'
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of April,1979.
2231 270