ML20032E252
| ML20032E252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1981 |
| From: | Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032E251 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8111200097 | |
| Download: ML20032E252 (26) | |
Text
.
. j,. ucoq gk i
UNITED STATES S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y i[el 3 *k g
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL g, = c-4 y W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 October 29, 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts
- r'-
FROM:
B. P aul Cotter, Jr.
Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 2:
MANAGEMENT OF DISCOVERY Enclosed is a proposed final rule to effect subject changes discussed at the meeting of the Commission on October 13, 1981.
The General Counsel, the Chairman of the Appeal Panel, and the Executive Legal Director have contributed to this statement of the proposed rule and recommend its adoption.
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
Commission Staff Offices Executive Director for Operations Executive Legal Director ASLAP OGC Secretariat 0007 811J05 PDR
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 2 Amendments to Rules of Practice Governing Discovery AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final Rule.
SUMMARY
The NRC is amenoing its Rules of Practice governing discovery to authorize its presiding officers to act on the.ir own initiative to control discovery, to require those employing discovery to certify the propriety of their usage of discovery, to impose sanctions on the abuse of discoverf, ano to establish parameters for discovery of opinions and mental processes.
The amendments are intended to reduce unnecessary discovery and eliminate undue burdens on limited NRC staff resources.
The amendments are a part of the Commission's continuing efforts to expedite the hearing process with due regard for the rights of the parties.
After these amendments have been in effect for one year, the Commission intends to review the results to determine if further amendments to discovery rules are war-ranted.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
(The date of publication in the Federal Reaister.)
l l
l l
a
1 2-FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
B. P aul Cc tter, Jr., Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Commission, Washington, D.C.
- 20555, Telephone (301) 492-7814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 18, 1981 and June 8, 1981 the Commission published in the Federal Register (46 FR 17216, 46 FR 30349) Notices of Proposed Rulemaking inviting public comment on various pro-posals to facilitate expedited conduct of its adjudicatory pro-c,e e d i n g s.
Both the March 18 and the June 8 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking contained, among other things, provisions to modify discovery procedures in NRC adjudications.
In the March 18 notice the Commission proposed to eliminate all discovery against the NRC staff, and i n the June 8 notice the Commission proposed to preclude a party from serving more than 50 inter-rogatories on another party, unless consent to file additional interrogatories were obtained from the licensing board.
i 1
More than 600 comments on the March 18 notice were received.
These were analyzed in SECY 81-252, a publicly available memorandum from the NRC General Counsel to the Commission which e
-,e-..v.-w.%.,--,.,3
,-r_-.-,m.---
,-#.m
-. n..r m
,g_~
_.,gy,,...
,,,.m
.,m.,,
. was briefly summarized when the Commission adopted as final rules some of the proposals contained in the March 18 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (46 FR 30328, June 8, 1981).
At that time, the Commission declined to adopt the proposal to eliminate dis-covery against the NRC staff, noting that it had under consid-eration a proposal to limit the number of interrogatories that a party might file against another party.
That proposal was set out in the June 8 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Commission received 61 comments on the June 8 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
These comments are analyzed in SECY 526, a memorandum from the NRC General Counsel t o th e C o ram i s -
sion, the discovery related portions of which are publicly available.
The Commission has not completed its review of all the amendments proposed in the June 8 notice.
However, the Commission, having considered the comments received in response to both the March 18, 1981 and June 8, 1981 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, is taking final action on the question of dis-covery.
The comments received nn the discovery proposals may be briefly summarized.
Most of the commenters opposed the elimination of discovery against the staff, arguing that their participation in a proceeding would be severely impeded if they could not
. obtain relevant information from the NRC staff through formal discovery prior to the hearing.
Many also suggested that the proposal might lengthen the hearing process.
The June 8 pro-posal to limit the number of interrogatories to 50, unless con-sent to file additional interrogatories were obtained from the presiding officer, was also generally opposed by the com-menters.
The nuclear industry was divided, some commenters favoring the proposed rule and others opposing the rule.
The 50 interrogatory limit was opposed by all intervenor commenters with one.xception.
Generally speaking, commenters opposing the proposed rule stated that the proposed limit of 50 inter-rogatories was unrealistically low given the complexity of NRC licensing cases, that intervenors cannot afford other methods of discovery such as depositions, and th at numerous requests to licensing boards to permit additional interrogatories could cause delay.
In consideration of the f,regoing proposals and responses, the Commission has decided to adopt a final rule reflecting a more flexible, affirmative approach to discovery in its proceedings.
The rule adds four new elements to the discovery process:
(1) an affirmative authority and responsibility in presiding officers to control discovery to eliminate the unreasonably cumul ative or duplicative, as well as that which is unduly
=-
=
==
_=
1 burdensoce or expensive; (2) a requirement that every party certify that every discovery action is taken in good faith and is legally appropriate; (3) provisions for sanctions where discovery is. abused; and (4) provisions governing the use of 3
}
discovery of opinions that relate to f act or the application of law to fact.
Normally, the parties are responsible for conducting discovery, l
anc judicial officers only become involved when a discovery dispute arises.
This is the practice at NRC where the inter-rogatory is the most frequently used discovery device.
A party to an NRC proceeding may file an unlimited number of interroga-tories on another party.
If a party is overwhelmed with inter-rogatories, it can move for a protective order from the board I
on the grounds that the interrogatories are annoying, oppres-sive, or impose an undue burden or expense.
If the motion is granted, the party does not have to answer the questions objected to.
In this rule the Commission adopts for use in NRC proceedings a modification of a June 1981 proposal by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States to eliminate delay and abuse in the discovery process found in Federal civil litigation.
The Judicial Conference proposal would make clear the power of a Federal
. judge to prevent redundant or disproportionate discovery by explicitly giving the Court authority to reduce the amount of discovery that may be directed to matters that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry.
The draf ters of proposed Federal Rule 26(b)(1) state that the amendment "is intended to encour-age judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discourag-ing discovery overuse...".
"The rule contemplates greater judicial involvement in the discovery process, and thus acknowledges the reality that it cannot always operate on a sel f-regul atory b asi s. "
Judicial Conference of the United States, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. & Ad.
News, G1, G35-G36 (No. 5, July 1981)
(" Preliminary Draf t").
l The Commission's final rule also adopts for use in NRC proceedings a modified portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b) governing interrogatories addressing opinions or contentions.
The adaptation is contained in a new section 2.740b(c).
The regulation has been silent on the subject to date.
This amendment makes clear th at the NRC follows the generally established practice on discovery against opinions and contentions thereby defining a context for the limitation of interrogatories against the Staff set out in this rule.
i
. Amendments to 2.720(h) contair, the newly enunciated limitations on the scope of interrogatories addressed to the staff.
Section by Section Analysis New section 2.740(b)(2) explicitly authorizes the presiding officer to limit discovery upon its own motion, as well as pursuant to a motion for a protective order (existing section 2.740(b)(2) is renumbered as section 2.740(b)(3)).
Under sec-tion 2.740(b)(2), a presiding officer may limit any or all f orms of discovery allowed pursuant to section 2.740(a) upon a finding that:
(1) such discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or available from some other source or method th at is either more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the party seeking discovery has already had ample opportu-nity to obtain the information sought through discovery; or (3) the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive given the needs of the case and the nature, number, and complexity of the issues in controversy.
These grounds are virtually identical to those set forth in the Judicial Conference proposal which is drafted to state current practice in many courts in issuing protective orders under
- _ - _ =
1 1 present Federal Rule 26(c).
Preliminary Draft at G35-G36.
The term "or method" in finding (1), above, establishes a t
Board's authority to require the parties to use alternate i
discovery methods, for example, to conduct informal document f
exchanges and colloquies prior to using interrogatories.
A new subsection, 2.740(g), obligates the parties to certify the propriety of discovery actions and explicitly authorizes sanctions for abuse of discovery.
Thus, every party's attor-ney or, duly authorized member or officer, or, if unrepre-sented, the party itself must sign every discovery request, response or objection thereby certifying that:
(1) it is based upon a reasonable theory warranted by existing law or a good faith belief as to what the law should be; (2) it is interposed in good faith and not primarily for delay or any other improper purpose; and (3) it is reasonable and not unduly burdensome or expensive under the circumstances of the particular case.
Failure to certify has several consequences.
Firstly, any uncertified discovery request, response or objection is of no effect and may be ignored by the recipient and the Board.
I-Secondly, failure to certify may be treated as non-compliance with discovery rules and can-lead to the imposition of i
l
.g.
sar.ctions against the party, it s at torney, or its duly author-ized representative.
Thirdly, sanctions may be imposed if the discovery action is shown to be in derogation of the certifica-tion.
4 Section 2.740(g) is derived from the Judicial Conference proposal and i s " designed to curb discovery abuse by explicitly encouraging the imposition of sanctions."
Preliminary Draf t, supra, at G36.
Although Federal Courts have express authority under Rule 37(d) to impose sanctions such as those which would be authorized under 2.740(g), the proposal i s designed to overcome the reluctance of Federal judges to impose such sanctions on attorneys who abuse the discovery rules by both "mak[ing] explicit the authority judges now have to impose appropriate sanctions and requir[ing] them to use it."
Id.,
at G38.
Sanctions permitted under current NRC practice are the I
reprimand, censure, or suspension f rom a particul ar proceeding of parties or their representatives who are found guilty of disorderly, disruptive or contemptuous conduct or who refuse ta comply with directions, 10 CFR 4 2.713(c).
In add i t i on,
section 2.707 provides for sanctions for f ailure to comply with orders of the presiding officer relating to discovery, including finding the relevant facts adversely to the def aul ting party.
The nature of the sanction to be imposed
--e-,----,,,w,y-,v.,---
--,,-ww.wm9,*----ga c _, p. e,w g _
_p_
mw--,.%w-
,-,.,,.ww.m y
-p---.._,r*-v*vm-*--w'f~~-wP--?* ~ - **-
- -r vt*---
i i
oursuant to these sections is a matter to be determined at the i
discretion of the presiding officer.
A new subsection, 2.740b(c), is designed to further expedite di',covery by making it clear that an interrogatory is not cojectionable merely because it calls for an opinion or conten-tion that relates to f act or the application of law to f act.
The substance of this proposed "section is drawn from Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which was adopted in 1970.
i While the opinions and contentions spoken of by this section are not intended to reach the privileged mental impressions of l
an attorney's work product,.they are intended to encompass j
mixed questions of law and f act which would aid in narrowing the issues in a proceeding.
See Union Carbide Corc. v.
l Tr avel er s Indemni t y Co., 61 F.R. D. 411, 414 (W.D. Pa. 1973).
The new subsection codifies existing practice at the NRC which follows the practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-dure.
e
. The rationale is stated in the Advisory Committee notes to the 1970 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reprinted in 48 F.R.D. 487, at 524:
Efforts to draw sharp lines between facts and I
opinions have invariably been unsuccessful, and the clear trend of the cases is to permit " factual" ooinions.
As to requests for opinions or contentions that cai' for the application of law to fact, they i
can be mo-t useful in narrowing and sharpening the issues, which is a major purpose of discovery.
On the other hand, under the new language interrogatories may not extend to issues of " pure law,"
1.e.,
legal issues unrelated to the f acts of the case.
(Citations omitted)
As interpreted j ud ic i al ly, however, the true test as to whether m at e r i al is discoverable is not 1
left to fine-spun distinctions between
" knowledge" and belief based upon information from I
other sources.
Rather, it is the practical test which has been well stated by Professor Moore when he poses the ouestion "would an answer serve any substantial purpose."
Taylor v.
Sound Steamship Lines, 100 F.Supp. 388, 389 (O. Conn. 1951).
Giving the Licensing Board the authority to determine whether discovery would " serve any subst anti al purpose" is in ac c o rd with the discretion given to the Licensing Board oursuant to i
section 2.740(b)(2) to supervise and limit discovery.
-. -.. -. - - - -. - - - -.,.. ~,.. -,. -..,.
i However, an amendment to seution 2.720(h)(2)(ii), while retaining the right of parties to file interrogatories against the 1 staff, limits the breadth of permissible interrogatories to those which address factual information related to the NRC staff's position in the proceeding, such as data used, as s ump -
tions made, and anal ses performed by the staff.
A conforming 3
change to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 2 is also made.
Interroga-tories which seek to require the staff to perform additional research or analytical work which goes beyond that needed by the staff to support its position on any particular matter are not permitted.
Similarly, the staff need not respond to interrogatories which call upon it to refute or expl ain why l
alternative data, assumptions or analyses, which it in fact did not consider, were not used in developing its position.
The language of the existing rule providing that the staf f may be required to answer permissible interrogatories only "upon a
i finding by the presiding officer that answers to the interroga-tories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and f
that answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtain-able from any other source..." is retained.
It should be emphasized that the amendment applies only to interrogatories directed to the staff by other parties.
The amendment to i
l
. section 2.720(h)(2)(ii) is not intended either to enlarge or to restrict the permissible scope of interrogatories which a party may serve on parties other than the NRC staff.
The Commission has decided not to eliminate all discovery against the staff as a matter of f airness to other parties, particularly intervenors.
To the extent that discovery elicits otherwise unavailable f actual information concerning the basis for the staff's position on a particular issue, a party should be better prepared for trial.
Better preparation may lead to shorter hearings.
At the same time, the staff should be able to produce f actual information it relies on to support its position with minimal disruption of i ts limited resources.
The Commission does not believe that the staff should be called upon in advance of trial to explain why i t did not use other data or be required to perform additional studies not essential to support the staff's position.
So long as prior to trial the other parties have an opportunity to learn what the staf f did, they will be able to show at the hearing what in their view the staff should have done.
By eliminating potentially burdensome interrogatories of this nature, the Commission will conserve staff resources while retaining a fair hearing process for all parties.
i
-=e-w-,-g-,w-,ew,.~
,,-w w,-,m
,,y-,.,,,,,w_,-,.vy,.w.:,..-y
,..-,--.e,,,..-.c
,,,,.c..-c-,
,--,-...-,,,.,,-wmm.,
-%,.-e
,r.m-p In adopting the final rule the Commission has also declined to accept the proposed numerical limit on the number of interroga-tories a party may serve on other parties.
The Commission believes that given the complexity of licensing hearings and issues, as well as differences in the numbers of contentions advanced by various parties, it is difficult to specify in aCyance what constitutes an appropriate number of interroga-tories.
In addition, the Commission agrees with those commenters who believe that unnecessary delay could result if licensing boards are routinely requested to authorize addi-tional interrogatories.
However, the Commission expects that licensing boards will carefully scrutinize interrogatory requests which are objected to by other parties in a timely manner and may well impose numerical limits on interrogatories in the appropriate circumstances.
It is also noteworthy that sectica 2.740b(c) specifically gives the presiding officer the discretion to delay the time at which an interrogatory must be answered until after the completion of l
designated discovery or after a prehearing conference held pursuant to ? 2.752.
The presiding officer may thereby allow a party the opportunity to fully develop the facts upon which an opinion is to be based.
l
. Conforming Amendments.
Conforming amendments to sections 2.720(h)(2)(iv) and 2.740(f)(3) are also made.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule affects the Commission's rules of practice and procedures by permitting expedition of the licensing process.
Paoerwork Reduction Statement There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in this regul ation, and therefere it is not subject to Office of i
Management and Budget clearance as required by Pub.
L.96-511.
Effective Date Because the amendments are related only to matters of procedure the Commission is making the amendrents effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
The amendments shall apply prospectively to discovery in pending cases.
This means that with the exception of the certification requirement. the amendments apply to discovery actions filed prior to
. publication of the amendments in the Federal Register but pending on that date.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and sections 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendments to Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2. are published as a document subject to codification to be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
PART 2 - RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS 1.
The authority citation for Part 2 reads as follows:
Authority:
Secs. 161p and 181, Pub.
L.83-703, 68 Stat.
950 and 953 (42 U.S.C. 2201(p) and 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub.
L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241);
sec. 201, as amended, Pub.
L.93-438, 88 Stat. 1242 (42 U.S.C. 5841) (5 U.S.C. 552), unless otherwise noted.
Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under sec. 186, Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236) and sec. 206, Pub. L.93-438, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846).
Sections 2.800-2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, as amended, Pub.
L.85-256, 71 St at. 579, and Pub. L.95-209, 91 Stat.
1483 (42 U.S.C. 2039).
2.
In 2.720, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) and (iv) are revised to read as follows:
. 2.720 Subpoenas.
(h)
(2)
(ii) In addition, a party may file with the presiding officer written interrogatories to be answered by NRC personnel with knowledge of the f acts designated by the Executive Director for Operations.
Upon a finding by the presiding officer that answers to the interrogatories are necessary to a proper decision in the proceeding and that answers to the interrogatories are not reasonably obtainable from any other source, the presiding officer may require that the staff answer the interrogatories.
Such interrogatories may seek to elicit factual information reasonably related to the NRC staff's position in the proceeding, including data used, assumptions made, and analyses performed by the NRC staff.
Such interrogatories shall not, however, be addressed to, or be construed to require (1) reasons for not using alternative data, assumptions, and analyses, where such alternative data, assumptions, and analyses were not considered in the staff review, or (2) Derformance of additional research or
18 analytical work beyond that which is needed to support the staff's position on any particular matter.
1 (iv)
The provisions of s 2.740(b)(2), (c) and (e), and 6 2.740(b)(c) shall apply to interrogatories served pursu-ant to this paragraph.
3.
Section 2.740 is amended by inserting a new subsection (b)(2) and renumbering as subsection (3) the existing subsection (2), by revising subsection (f)(3), and by adding a new subsection (g) to read at io' lows:
9 2.740 General provisions governing discovery.
(b)
Scope of discovery.
1 (2)
Supervision of discovery.
Discovery is allowable to the extent that an answer would serve any substantial purpose.
However, the frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods set forth in subsection (a) may be limited by the presidina officer if it determines that:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably
. cumulative or duplicative, or obtainable from some other source or method that is either more convenient, less b_urdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the proceeding to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, given'the needs of the case, and the number and complexity of the issues in controversy.
The presiding officer may act upon its own initiative or pursuant to a motion under subdiv_i-sion (c) to specifically limit the use of discovery, for example, the number of interrogatories any party may serve.
(3)
Trial preparation materials.
(f)
Motion to compel discovery.
- i (3)
This sectiun does not preclude an fadependent request for issuance of a subpoena directed to a person not a party for production of documents and things.
This section does not apply to requests for the testimony or interrogatories of the staff pursuant to 2.720(h)(2) or production of NRC documents pursuant to @ 2.744 or 2.790, except for paragraphs (b)(2), (c), (e) and 101 of this section.
(g)
Signing of Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.
Every request for discovery, or response or objection thereto, made by a ocrty represented of record by an attorney or a duly authorized member or officer shall be
- igned by at least one such person in his or her individual name, and the individual's address shall be stated.
A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the request, resoonse, or objection and state his or her address.
The signature of the attorney, member, officer, or party constitutes a certification that he or she has read the request, response, or objection, and that it is l
(1) to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inauiry consistent with l
l these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith l
crgument for the extension, modification, or reversal of 1
1 i
~
+
. 1 existing law; (2) interposed in good faith and not primar-ily to cause delay or for any other improper purpose;. and (3) not unduly burdensome or expensive, given the.needs of I
the case, its nature and complexity, and the discovery a
already had in the case.
If a request, response, or-ob-jection is not. signed, it shall be of no effect.
If a discovery action is not certified or if a certi-fication is made in violation of this subsection, the presiding officer, where appropriate and upon motion or upon its own i n i_t i at i v e, shall impose upon the person who made the certification or the party on whose behalf the h
reouest, response._or objection is made, or both, an appropriate sanction pursuant to section 2.707 or'2.713.
i 4.
Section 2.740b is revised by amending the last sentence of subsection (b) and adding a new subsection (c) to read as follows:
2.740b Interrogatories to parties.
(b)
Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection
. shall be stated in lieu of an answer.
The answers shall be signed by the person making them, and the objections by the party, its attorney, or the member or officer making them.
The party upon whom the interrogatories were served shall serve a copy of the answers and objections upon all parties to the proceeding within 14 days after service of the interrogatories, or within such shorter or longer period as the presiding officer may allow.
Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be incuired into under 4 2.740(b), and the answers may be used in the same manner as depositions (see 2.740a(g)).
(c)
An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necassarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.
- Hewever, the presiding officer may order, pursuant to its powers to supervise discovery under 4 2.740(b)(2), that such an interrogatory need not be answered until after desionated discovery has been completed, until after a prehearing conference has been held pursuant to % 2.752, or until such time or upon such conditions as the presiding officer deems _necessary in its discretion to secure the
- just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of a proceed-ing.
5.
In Appendix A, paragraph IV, " Discovery", is revised by adding new language to subsections (c) and (d) to read as follows:
(c)
Depositions, interrogatories and document production between parties other than the staff are obtainable on notice or request to the other party and without leave of the Commission or the board, in line with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
All written discovery reauests, responses or objections are to be signed by either the party, the party's duly authorized member or officer, or the carty's attorney.
The signature constitutes a certification that the signer has read the document and that it is consistent with discovery rules, interposed in good faith, and not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or exoensive.
An unsigned discovery document shall be deemed ineffective.
The presiding officer is authorized, either uoon motion made or its own initiative, to direct that certain discovery action be taken or deferred and, where appropriate, to impose sanctions for discovery actions taken in violation of the rules.
a 4 (d) In general, staff documents that are relevant to 3 proceeding will be publicly available as a matter of course unless there~is a compelling justification for their non-disclosure.
Therefore, document discovery directed at the staff will be restricted, as provided in 2.744, since most staff documents will be publicly available and should i
reasonably disclose the basis for the staff's position.
Formal discovery of documents ag ai n s t the staff will be limited to cases where it concerns a matter necessary to a proper decision in a case and the information sought is not obtainable elsewhere.
Discovery as a legitimate means of obtaining information will not be inhibited, but in view of the comprehensive body of information routinely available without request, there should be minimum need to resort to time consuming discovery procedures.
Discovery against the j
staff (and other NRC personnel, includ.ing consultants) by way of deposition is permitted upon a showing of excep-tional circumstances.
Interrogatories may be addressed to the staff where the information is necessary to proper decision in the case and not obtainable elsewhere.
Such interrogatories may seek to elicit factual information
,.y
--.---,,,e
..~r
. renonably related to the NRC staff's position in the proceeding including data used, assumptions made, and analyses performed by the NRC staf f.
Such interrogatories shall not, however, be addressed to, or be construed to require (1) reasons for not employing alternative data, assumptions, and analyses, where such alternative data, assumptions, and analyses were not considered in the staff review, or (2) performance of. additional research or analytical work beyond that which is needed to support the staff's position on any particular matter.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of 1981.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Samuel J.
Chilk Secretary of the Commission l
l l
l
(
i l
geMMMMEGEMMG0M0MfiMMGMMMMMMM%DMMg 2
m=.-
m cd TRANSMITTAL To:
/x7x Document Control Desk,
~ E===
x=
B@
~
016 Phillies g
ADVANCED COPY To:
O ' The Public Document Room h
DATg.
November 6,-1981
==
Attached are the PDR copies of a Commission meeting P
transcript /s/ and related meeting-document /s/.
h They are beine forwarded for entrv on the Daily Accession p
List and'r,lacement in the Public Document Room.
F other dis'ribution is requested or required.
No SD Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual p"$
documents wherever possible.
c'],
1.
I Transcript of:
Discussion and Possible Vote on x=
Revised Licensing Procedures, Proposed Rule Change S3 to Part 2, November 5, 1981.
8, q
a.
Memo from B. Cotter to the Commissioners dated Oct. 29. 81, Subj:
Pro W
Management of Discovery. posed Changes to Part 2:
4 (1 copy) g=
jag :arown g
Office of the Secretary gg 1
g e,/0e'
/a 1
m f.
%gf w
E c
de F
3 c
M:fetg &
w Q
j S/A 4
'?W8?
c n2 1
e$
as g>.
y vD. h_hh hhhhhhhhh'hhhh hh-hh.
hhh hhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhh'hh'
~-
.