ML20010C822
| ML20010C822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1981 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Pollock M COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP, POLLOCK, M. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108210050 | |
| Download: ML20010C822 (4) | |
Text
-
., *0M7 T
s r.
x mm-e
. Auk st 19, 1981
'l'
./ T
([I g/
Mark Pollock, Esq.
s 4
the Gap Og Couasel for Coaaittee to Bridge 1
1724 Horth La Brea Avenue
[
e
}
i.os Angeles, CA 90046
\\g 43,,
sco e
In the Matter of The Regents of the University of Califernia (UCLA Research Reactor)
Docket fio. 50-142 (Proposed Renewal of Facility License)
Dear Mr. Pollock:
IIRC Staf f has received the Intervenor's filing dated July 30, 1981, setting forth a large number of interrogatories directed to Staff and the Comi<,sion's consultants (five hundred and seventy-three interrogatories, some with sub-parts) as well as a request for production of f4RC documents which request was pursuant to both the discovery rules and tne Freedon of Infonaation Act (FOIA). The filing does not comply with the procedural requirements of the Coraatssion's regulations governing discovery against the Staff for the reasons discussed below. Because your service of interrogatories and request for docu-cents pursuant to discovery procedures contravene the Cor.uission's Rules of l
Practice, these requests will not be answered. However, the FOIA request has been transmitted to the proper llRC offir.e for processing.
Please note that 10 CFR b 2.740b(a) specifically exempts the Staff from responding to interrogatories except as pr)vided by 10 CFR s 2.720(h)(2)
(ii). Limitations on discovery against the Staff are d:scussed in 10 CFR Part 2, Appenaix A, 9 IV(d).
t The provisions of 10 CFR 9 2.720(h)(2)(ii) are as follows:
[AJ party may file with the presiding officer written interrog-atories to be answereo by iiRC personnel with knowledge of the facts designated by the Executive Director for Operations. Upon a finding by the presiding officer that answers to the interrog-dtories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and 8108210050 810819' PDR ADOCK 05000142 O
PDR bro 7
.g...........
o" *
..................l OATEk
................l nne ronu ma no comeu cuo
. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- ** "-m m j
y y
y-m rr y
-3 E
O.
y
~%p..
31.
5,J t%
9 liark Pollock, Esq. that answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source, the presiding officer may require that the staff answer the interrcgatories.
This rule, as well as other regulations relating to seeking discovery against the Staff, was explained by the Appeal Board as follows:
Discovery against the staff is on a different footing.
liith iinited exceptions, Comission regulations make staff docu-nents that are relevant to licensing proceecings routinely available in the llRC Public Document Roou.
The contemplation is that these "should reasonably disclose the basis for the staff's position," tnereby reducing any need for formal discovery.
Reflective of that policy, the Rules of Practice linit documentary discovery against the staff to items not reasonably obtainable from other sources, 10 CFR 2.744; require a showing of " exceptional circunstances" to depose staff personnel,10 CFR 2.720(h) and 2.740a(j); and allow interrogatories addressed to the staff only "where the information is necessary to a proper decision in the case and not obtainable elsewhere." See 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(ii).
In addition, the licensing board's advance permission is needed to depose staff aembers or to require the staff to answer written interrogatories.
(Citations oaitted).
Dennsylvania Power and Lit;ht Co. et al. (Susquehanna Stean Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-b13,12 iiRC 317, 323 (1980).
The procedure for discovery against the Staff was previously pointed out in the Staff response to Applicant's interrogatories, wherein Staff indicated that it waived the 10 CFR Part 2 procedures for discovery against Stc*f because of an inforcal agrecuent that Applicant's interrogatories would not rt. quire signif' cant expenditure of Staff's time or resources and that no request for docunents would be filed.lf Such is not the case with the interrogatories you have filed. Responses to the excessively large nunber of interrogatories you submitted would require a great deal of Staff s tiae and resources. Therefore, since you have not filed the interrogatories to Staff with the Presiding officer of this proceeding for answers by liRC personnel designated by the Executive Director for Operations, you have failed to abide by procedures for discovery frou the Staff, ano the Staff declines to answer the submitted interrogatories.
In reading through your interrogatories, it also appears to Staff tnat many requests for information go beyond the subject matter involved in any admitted l
contention. Tnese requests are, of course, objectionable for this reason (see 10 CFR $ 2.740(b)) aside from the Staff's objection to your failure to E I4RC STAFF RESP 0 HSE TO APPLICAllT'S FIRST SET OF IliTERROGATORIES T0 STAFF,
!!AY 15, 1981.
"'c 4 NRC FORM 318 :10 bop NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY um em24
e, w
w w
f w
nark roliock, tsq. couply with the procedural requirements of the Comission's regulations.
In the event you decide to refile any interrogatories in the manner which satis-fies the Comission's procedural requireuents, the Staff would have the right to review those interrogatories and mak2 any appropriate objections.
Regarding your request for production of docunents, you should note that 10 CFR s 2.741(e) states that production of HRC records and documents is subject to the provisions of lu CFR 5 2.744 (for initial licenses) and 10 CFR 9 2.790.
The latter re ulation states that, with the exceptions noted in the rule, u
final URC records and documet.ts are available for inspection and copying in the tiRC Public bocuc.ent Roca (POR) so that, except for oaterial speci-fically exempted froa public disclosure, all extant hRC records you have listed in request for docunents are available for your inspection and copying at the PDR.
I an enclosing a Public Docuuent Roon Users Guide to provide inforuation on obtaining documents you wish.
The filing states that tne request for production of docunents is also made pursuant to the Freedon of Information Act. As a courtesy to you, I have transmitted the FOIA request to the appropriate NRC office for processing.
In the future, any FOIA request should be directed to the agency official indicated ja 10 CFR k 9.8(a) and not the Staff or Staff Counsel.
Finally, as cour ant on your request that " Staff answer the following inter-rogatories fully and separately under oath, pursuant to the Board Order of July 1,1981" Staff notes that tne subject Board Order in pertinent part oerely stated the following:
At the prehearing conference on February 4,1931, the Staff stated that it expected to issue the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and the Environnental lapact Appraisal (EIA) in April 1981. Tr. 121. These docuuents together with " Analysis of Credible Accidents for Argonaut Reactors, HUREG/CR-2079, PHL-3691" and "Suauary of Cooputer hodel and Selected Results from Argonaut Design Basis Accident Evaluation, iiUREG/CR-219d" were not issued until June 19, 1981.
Because of the late re-lease dote they are outside tne fiscovery schedule stipulated by the parties and adopted by the tMard in its itarch 20, 1931 Order. Discovery requests based on tnese documents cay be submitted no later tnan thirty (30) days from tha date of this Urder. Responses to ony discovery requests must he served no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this vder.2/
Nothing in this Urcer indicates to whou or by what rule of practice interrog-utories ady be served, nor does it order any matter other than the schedule N ORDt4 RELATIVE TO APPLICAtiT'S HOTIO;l FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, OTHER RLyuESTS AHD AN ADJUSTED DISCOVERY SCilEDULE, July 1,1981, at 7.
on:cr >
summ) mu)
NRC FORM 3tH HO NOI NRCM ONO OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY
'=*"3"
'.y
,w w
Qp qr3 g
p, Mark Pollock, Esq. i for submitting and responding to discovery based on the documents referenced in the Order.
I hope-that_ the above cited regulations clarify the procedures for and 1101-tations _of discovery directed to Staff.
Sincerely, Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for f(RC Staff cc:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Dr. Errc.eth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar 11. Paris William 11. Cormier, Esq.
Mr. John Bay Mr. Daniet Ilirsch den Locond, CA Christine Helwick, Esq./
Glenn R. Woods, Esq.
Distribution C.Woodhead R.Bachmann S.Treby liKS/TFE/ ESC ELD FF (2)
PDR LPDR J. Miller, 216-Phil L.Tremper, SS-396 H. Bernard, 228-Phil Chron.
X (2) t orreca>....O. E.L. D..i.
.....O. g.f 1 D
~ ~==>.c m..... 3,gs...sgg3 x,..,
........ /.19 /. 81 08/19/81 i
oer)
-08 OFFICI'. L RECOR D COPY Nac ronu a eno so.wacu cafo
"'So'} "-22* *" :
1