ML19289F443
| ML19289F443 | |
| 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 7906070376 | |
| Download: ML19289F443 (6) | |
Text
..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FNISSI0ti BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEilSING 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)
)
NRC STAFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL INTERVEt!0R, CAROLIllA ACTION, TO RESPOND TO THE STAFF'S -
INTERROGATORIES OF MARCH 23, 1979 On February 23, 1979, theAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard(Board) issued an Order directing the parties to proceed with discovery.1/ The NRC Staff (Staff) served a Second Set of Interrogatories on the Intervenor, Carolina Action, on March 23, 1979 in accordance with the Board's Order and the Commission's Rules of Practice.
The Staff's interrogatories concern Carolina Action's specific contentions which were admitted by the Board's Order of November 2, 1978. 2_/ Carolina Action alleges generally that shipment of Oconee spent fuel to McGuire for storage is unacceptable compared to other alternativest that transportation J " Order Concerning Discovery, Contentions and Scheduling (February 23, 1979)."
_2] " Order Following Prehearing Conference," dated November 2,1978.
79060703 K
-2 of the spent fuel will create an unac'ceptable hazard by significantly
~
increasing radiation doses to persons near the proposed transportation routes; and that for these reasons an environmental impact statement is required.
Each interrogatory, filed by the Staff, requests infonnation concerning the factual basis for Carolina Actions contentions, and the identity of
- persons, including expert Witnesses to be called by Carolina Action having knowledge of discoverable ma'tter.
The interrogatories are within the scope of permissible discovery.
The Rules of Practice regarding discovery state:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privilegeo, which is relevant to the subject matte'r 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 indentity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.
In a proceeding... discovery...shall
- - ~ - ~
- - ~
relate only to those matters in controversy which 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 274
.The Staff's interrogatories fall squarely within s2.740(b)(1). The purpose of the Staff's interrogatories is to ascertain the basic relevant facts underlying the Carolina Action contentions at issue in this proceeding.
Such disclosure is the precise purpose of the applicable Conunission discovery rules and is necessary to insure complete trial preparation by the Staff in this proceeding.
Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Stai:en, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-196, 7 AEC 457, 460-463 (1974).
See also:
Boston Edison Company, et al. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579, 583 (1975).
Conclusion Carolina Action's failure to respond to Staff's interrogatories is dilatory and is frustrating the orderly progress of this proceeding.
Accordingly, NRC Staff requests the Board to grant Staff's motion, and to order Carolina Action to respond fully in writing, under oath or affirmation, to Staff's interrogatories of March 23, 1979 and to dismiss Carolina Action from these proceedings if it fails to fully respond to the Board's Order.
Respectfully submitted,
?
.c L C X /
'd Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of April,1979.
2231 275
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY Docke'. 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 CAROLINA ACTION The NRC Staff has moved pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740(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 Carolina Action on March 23, 1979 in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.
The Board has examined the interrogatories and determined that they are reasonable and within the scope of permissible discovery as set forth in 10 CFR s2.740.
Carolina Action neither answered nor objected to any of the interrog-atories as required by 10 CFR 52.740b(b) and 52.740(f) within the time allowed by the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Carolina Action may 2231 276
not unilaterally modify the requirements for responses to interrogatories as set forth in 10 CFR 32.740(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 be arrived at by the parties.
In this instance, there is no stipu,lation concerning an extension of time.
tior has any motion been filed by Carolina Action seeking an extension of the time provided for by the Rules for responses to interrogatories.
Carolina Action has an obligation to supply the bases of its contentions in response to interrogatories requesting 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) Carolina Action has neither responded nor objected to the interrogatories in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR 52.740b(b) and 52.740(f).
(2) Carolina Action has unilaterally, without good cause, and contrary to the Rules of Practice and this Board's 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 Carolina Action in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice.
(3) Such tactics are dilatory and contrary to the orderly progress of this proceeding.
2231 277
. Accordingly, the Board directs Carolina Action 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 Carolina Action from thcse proceedings if Carolina Action fails to comply with the Boar,d's Order.
IT IS 50 ORDERED.
FOR ATOMIC SAFETY Afl0 LICENSING BOARD Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Respectfully submitted, A/d Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff s Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of April,1979.
2231 278
.