ML20054F343

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to Licensee Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses Or,Alternatively,For Imposition of Sanctions.Nrc Will Take No Position on Motion to Compel.If Discovery Order Not Obeyed,Aslb Should Consider Imposing Sanctions
ML20054F343
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 06/14/1982
From: Johari Moore
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20054F344 List:
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8206160110
Download: ML20054F343 (3)


Text

.. :-.

t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

}l CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF I

Docket Nos. 50-247-SP NEWYORK(IndianPoint, Unit 2) h 50-286-SP J

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF 1

June 14, 1982 NEWYORK(IndianPoint, Unit 3)

)'

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEES' MOTION TO COMPEL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

.e l

1.

DISCUSSION l

Pursuant to the Board's request set forth in its mailgram of June 10, 1982, the Staff is responding to Licensees' Motion For an Order Compelling Responses To Interrogatories Or, In The Alternative Imposing Sanctions For Failure To Respond, And Striking Certain Con'tentions (hereinafter Licensees' Motion). This Motion is directed at Intervenors UCS/NYPIRG, Parents, and F0E/Audubon (Intervenors). Since discovery disputes generally affect i

only those parties among them whom the dispute arises, the Staff nomally j

does not take positions on discovery disputes to which the Staff is not a l

party. Therefore, in response to the present motion which involves only the intervenors and the Licenses, the Staff has not taken a position on the merits of the Motion to compel answers by Intervenors to certain of Licensees' interrogatories.

l The Staff does, however, take a position with regard to those dis-covery matters which potentially affect parties other than those involved directly in the dispute. Licensees' request for sanctions to be imposed on Intervenors falls into this category of discovery matters.

In their 8206160110 820614 f

l

{DRADOCK05000 l

i I

l Motion Licensees have requested the following relief in addition to an order compelling answers to certain of their interrogatories:

1 l

1.

that the contentions of non-complying intervenors be stricken; 2.

that certain Board contentions be stricken; 3.

that non-complying intervenors be prohibited from conducting cross-examination or from introducing evidence on emergency planning. Licensees' Motion at 26.

i The sanctions requested by Licensees are severe sanctions. Even in situations where Intervenors have either failed to participate in dis,

covery or violated a Board's discovery order, Licensing Boards have been reluctant either to dismiss an intervenor or strike an intervenor's con-tentions without first giving the intervenor one more opportunity to correct its delinquencies. See Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-74-74, 8 AEC 669 (1974); Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2),

[

ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 322 (1980). Therefore, while the Staff recognizes the necessity to have answers to both Licensees' and Staff's interros,a-tories quickly due to the iminent comencement of the emergency planning portion of this hearing, the Staff concludes that it would be appro-priate first to issue an order compelling Intervencrs to provide full answers to those interrogatories which the Licensing Board determines have not been sufficiently answered by Intervenors. Due to the short time remaining before the hearings comence, the time allowed by the

t Board for additional Intervenor responses should be brief. If Inter-venors fail to comply with the Board's order, then the imposition of sanctions should b'e considered.

II. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above the Staff concludes:

1.

the Staff will take no position on the Licensees' motion to compel answers to certain of their interrogatories; 2.

if intervenors fail to comply with a discovery order issued by the Board, then the Board should consider the imposition of appropriate sanctions.

Respectfully submitted, d

b b. M M Janice E. Moore Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of June, 1982