ML19351A223
| ML19351A223 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 02700039 |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1981 |
| From: | Goodhope A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ILLINOIS, STATE OF, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), U.S. ECOLOGY, INC. (FORMERLY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8106260312 | |
| Download: ML19351A223 (6) | |
Text
.
)'
[
,7 q
F
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A.
y 8(i LL, J
IUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
D0 p 1
y
'2).
MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD h 2O(3 g,
~
Before Administrative Judges:
Andrew C. Goodhope, Chairman s
t Dr. Jerry R. Kline w.
b
-~
Or. Forrest J. Remick In the Matter of Docket No. 27-39 SC U.S. ECOLOGY,- INC.
gi,Eli.0 JU (Sheffield,IllinoisLow-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site )
June 22, 1981
)
ORDER RULING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FILED BY PRC STAFF AND INTERVENOR, STATE OF ILLINDIS, AND SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE The NRC Staff Motion to Compel The NRC Staff's principal objection to the replies of U.S. Ecology, Inc. to the Staff's interrogatories are that documents which "ralate to" various documents or filings made by U.S. Ecology, Inc. with the NRC during the courses of license extension applications and withdrawal of such applications were not sufficiently identified or made available in response to Staff's interrogatories.
U.S. Ecology, Inc. replies that all such documents or filings are a part of NRC records and are sufficiently well described that the Staff car.
locate such documents. The Staff makes no claim that it cannot find such documents. This Board does not feel that further identification of such documents is necessary. As to d',cuments which " relate to" other documents or actions by U.S. Ecology, Inc. which the Staff claims have not been 4,
8 9*g n 8106260 3/.2 C_
l
~
. ]
1 produced, U.S. Ecology, Lic. replies that all such documents are a part of the record or were inade available to the Staff as a part of the Staff search of U.S. Ecology, Inc. files at both Sheffield, Illinois and Louisville, Kentucky. This Boara can find nothing to refute this statement. The claim that U.S. Ecology, Inc. may have withheld discoverable evidence under the claim of proprietary interest or attorney-client privilege will be handled.
in the Board order hereinafter. Consequently the Staff's motion to compel further.nswers by U.S. Ecology, Inc. to Staff's interrogatories is denied.
Intervenor, The State cf Illinois (State), Motion to Compel
- 1.. State Interrogatory S.
The Stcte's motion to compel replies to this interrogatory is denied since U.S. Ecology, Inc. specifically states that its board of director's minutes contain no information called for by that interrogatory. That U.S. Ecology, Inc. used the term " technical specifications" in its answer to the interrogatory does not appear to be a means for hiding ssne other relevant minutes when U.S. Ecology, Inc.
has specifically stated in footnote 4, page 3 of its answer that no such minutes exist.
1 2.
State Interrogatories 14,15,16 and 17.
The motion to compel further answers to these inte rogatories is denied based upon U.S. Ecology, Inc. commitment in its answer to suoply ao:litional information.
3.
State Interrogatory 18.
State's motion to compel further answer to this interrogatory is der.ied.
The State has had copies of all filings made by U.S. Ecology, Inc. for a long period of time, including the letter identified in the answer to the interrogatory.
In addition the State conducted a research of U.S.
Ecology, Inc. files both at Sheffield, Illinois and Louisville, Kentucky. Speculation that there should have been other documents in the files does not support the motion to compel. State's claim that discoverable doctments may have been withheld under a eltim of l
proprietary interest or ' attorney-client privilege will be treated hereinafter.
4.
State Interrogatory 19.
State's motirn to compel further answer to this 'nterrogatory is denied.
The' State has had an opportunity to search the files of U.S. Ecology, Inc. to find doctments responsive to this interrogatory. The Board-feels that this constitutes a complete answer. The Board is not at this time going to attempt to rule on what material will or will not be admitted into evidence at the hearings. Consequently, State's suggestion that the Board now decide that U.S. Ecology, Inc. be barred from offering evidence is premature. We will hear objections at the hearing.
5.
State Interrogatory 20.
State's motion to compel further answer ta this interrogatory is denied for the same reasons set forth in 4. above.
6.
State Interrogatory 21..
State's motion to compel further answer to this interregatory is denied based upon U.S. Ecology, Inc. comitment in its answer to supply further information.
7.
State interrogatory 23.
State's motto. to compel further answer to this interrogatory is denied for the same reasons set fortti in 4. above.
.,..-.._..._1......,_-
~
l 4-8.
State Interrogatories 24 and 25.
State's motion to compel further answers to these interrogatories is denied for the same reasons set forth in 4.
above.
9.
State Interrogatory 26.
State's motion to compel further answer to this interrogatory is denied as calling for irrelevant matter.
- 10. State Interrogatories 31, 42 and 44.
State's motion to compel further answers to these interrogatorics is denied since the answers appear complete and the documents are sufficiently identified to permit easy location.
- 11. State Interrogatories 38, 40, 47, 54, 62 and 63.
State's motion to compel further aswers to these interrogatories is denied since the answers are complete. As pointed out by U.S. Ecology, Inc., its methods of solidification and packaging were a part of the conditions for its license and had to be followed or a violation of
-license conditions would have occurred ~;ith the resulting penalties.
-12. State Interrogatory 51.
State's suggestion that the Board rule on a6aissibility of evidence at this time is premature.
- 13. State Interrogatories 55 and 56.
l-State's motion to compel further answer to these interrogatories is denied based upon U.S. Ecology, Inc. commitment in its answer to provide further information.
- 14. State Interrogatory 59.
State's motion to compel further answer to this interrogatory is granted.
U.S. Ecology, Inc. is required to answer in detail ac to the
locat. ion and possible effects particular to the chanical burial trench outside the boundary of the chemical waste disposal site and its
. relationship to the radiocctive disposal site.
15..Stata Interrogatory 69.
Stcte's raation to compai further answer to this interrogatory is denied since it is merely' descriptive of information already made available to the State by U.S. Ecology, Inc.
i
- 16. State Interrogatory 80.
State's motion to compel is granted to the extent that information on tests performed on solidification be made available if any such tests were made.
- 17. State Interrogatory 82-87.
State's motion to come.el #urther, answers to these interrogatories. is denied based upon U.S. Ecology, Inc. commitment to answer these interrogatories.
I
- 18. State Interrogatory 92.
i State's motion to compel is granted to the extent that U.S. Ecology, Inc. must identify as requested the persons natned in its answer if they are not elsewhere fully identified.
l Both the Staff and the State suggest that U.S. Ecology, Inc. may have withheld discoverable documents by claiming proprietary interest or attorney-client privilege.
In order to resolve this question the Board directs that U.S. Ecology, Inc. make available to the Board only at the next prehearing conference all information withheld on the basis of proprietary l
l
. interest, attorney-client privilege as well as financial fr. formation for the Board's review as to whether any such claims have any basis.
A pr6 hearing conference in this matter will be held connencing at 9:00 a.m., 24 July 1981 at the Rmada O' Hare Inn, Maeting Room 0-11, Mannheim and Higgins Roads, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. The purpose of this conference is to permit the Board to review the docunents withheld by the Applicant, to set times for the filing of testimony and hearings in this matter and any other matters that may come before the Board.
~
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
--bin 1Q.
- Ah --
_ Andrew C. Goodhope, Chairman 1
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland,
' this 22nd day of June, 1981.
i l
e
... ~.,, _ _, ~.
r
...~.y,.
- 4.,.,. -.,,--_... - ---..