ML20031G397
| ML20031G397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1981 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8110220364 | |
| Download: ML20031G397 (3) | |
Text
_ _.
~
4 4
f
(
o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9-gT ~\\gep\\ 9 l
A 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
g Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke 4
f SERVE 0 0CT131981 l
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-142 OL
)
(Proposed Renewal of THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY FacilityLicense) 0F CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor)
October 13, 1981 ORDER RELATIVE TO DISCOVERY BY i-OCT28ISST
'~
CBG 0F THE NRC STAFF i.
' WT%^** ;li i
The Board's order of July 1, 1981, stated the following: 5
- \\/
/
At the prehearing conference on February 4, 1981, the aN stated that it expected to issue the Safety Evaluation
. Report (SER) and the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) in April,1981. Tr. 121. These documents together with
" Analysis of Credible Accidents for Argonaut Reactors, NUREG/CR-2079, PNL-3691" and " Summary of Computer Model L
and Selected Results from Argonaut Design Basis Accident e
Evaluation, NUREG/CR-2198" were net issued until June 19, 1981.
Because of the late release date, they are outside the discovery schedule stipulated by the parties and adopted by the Board in its March 20, 1981 order. Discovery requests based on these documents may be submitted no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Responses to any discovery _ requests must be served no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this order.
On July 30, CBG submitted a voluminous set of interrogatories to the Staff based on the Staff documents. On August 19 the Staff refused to answer any of the 573 interrogatories (some with sub-parts) on the basis that CBG had not complied with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.720(h)(2)(ii). On W
- }
h0220364811013 ADOCK 05000142
^O PDR
e'
- September 14', CBG moved for the Board to require the Staff to answer the interrogatories on the bases that the information sought was necessary to a proper decision, the information is available only from the Staff and that the Board's order of July 1 was a directive to the Staff to respond to discovery requests. The motion also stated that several unsuccessful attempts had been made to contact the Staff by phone to confer before the motion was filed. On October 5 the Staff denied that the Board's order of July I was a direction to the Staff to answer non-existing discovery requests and said that CBG had not met its burden under the regulations because it made only a general. statement j of need and lack of availability from other sources. The Staff ~ contends that each interrogatory must be. individually justified.
The Board's orders of August 24 and September 4 directed the parties to confer and make every effort to resolve differences before motions are filed with the Board. CBG contends that it unsuccessfully attempted to comply with this direction. We think a greater effort should have been made and also the Staff had an obligaticn to initiate a conferance with CBG. The Scaff and UCLA were able to reach an accommodation on discovery without inyolving the Board.
In the " Statement of Policy of Licensing Pro-ceedings" issued on fiay 20, 1981, the Commission gave guidance on discovery which mentioned the need for parties to attempt to resolve differences by referring to..." written reports from the parties, telephone calls, and status report conferences on the record." The Statement also mentioned that the number of discovery requests
..."ma'y place an undue burden on the parties, particularly the NRC Staff,...." All of the above supports
e,
the reasonableness of the Board's direction to the parties in a discovery dispute to meet and diligently work toward resolving differences before presenting the matter to the Board.
Our order of July 1 established a time frame for discovery on the Staff documents but most certainly was not a directive to the Staff on unknown but possible discovery requests.
The Board defers its ruling en the motion at this time. He will not rule in this matter until we receive a report from the parties on the result of their meeting - which should be scheduled as promptly as practicable. We expect CBG to thoroughly review the interrogatories prior to the meeting and to greatly reduce the number by focusing on those it con-siders the most essential.
The Staff also has a responsibility to review the interrogatories and to recognize, prior to the meeting, those questions which are necessary to furnish information for a sound decision and for which the information is not otherwise available.
Il as 50 ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEllSING BOARD
(~-lizabeth S. Bowers, ChairmanLJdll' J ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland October 13, 1981